# Stop Calling It Marriage Equality



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Interesting article in the Federalist:

Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Some quotes:



> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”





> Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.





> The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a _ménage à trois_ (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


----------



## R.D. (Oct 8, 2014)

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized.


It's not a slippery slope. What's the argument against it? It has a history as long as mankind and rejecting traditional marriage while claiming we need to adhere to the late tradition of two people is odd and illogical.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 8, 2014)

A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.

Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.

MYOB


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 8, 2014)

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.



Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.



But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.
> ...



Dead wrong.  You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage. 

I eagerly await your reply.


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.
> ...




You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.

You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America. 

There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind. 
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.

That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.

The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.

As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either. 

If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 8, 2014)




----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Such a simplistic understanding of how the world works. Its almost precious. 

There can be plenty of other restrictions on a contract, even the marriage contract. You have to pass a blood test, you can't be related within a certain degree, and you can only have one at a time. All of those are perfectly valid legal restrictions above the three you posted. 

Next, I would vote FOR same sex marriage if it came up in a referendum, my opposition comes when it is based on judicial fiat in opposition of the separation of powers found in the constitution. 

Next, unlike gays, blacks are smart enough to go to service providers who want to cater to them. Also, sooner or later black religious people will be sued for this crap under PA laws, once the degree of acceptable "outness" in the black community approaches that of the white community. Watch how support for PA laws among the socially conservative blacks dried up after that. 

Finally, the definition of a PA has been warped to include every business out there. Services for a wedding are not PA's.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...



Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


>



Fuck off and Die. Implying these people want to torture or kill gays just by opposing gay marriage is foul.

A pox on your house.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



The only thing with a pox on it in this thread is opposition to gay rights.  25 states, soon to be 30, and counting.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...
> ...


You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.

btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine. 

Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort. 

Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit.  What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Again, you are going after the wrong person If you think I oppose gay marriage, again my issue is with the process, not the results. 

And you are still a smear of human excrement on Lakota's fake native american nutsack for posting that cartoon.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.

There is a large difference like I explained.

There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension. 

There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"


----------



## JFK_USA (Oct 8, 2014)

LOL it's over Right Wingers.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.

And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JFK_USA said:


> LOL it's over Right Wingers.



Lol, I notice you couldn't retort the points _I made. _


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

JFK_USA said:


> LOL it's over Right Wingers.


They can all marry their dogs!


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Everything pertaining to the pursuit of happiness is a civil right unless it infringes on someone else's civil right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


  Yet you use definitions that are not used by normal people in the mainstream.  Your hyperbole, Marty, is as foul as the picture above.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Define my misuse of your purported "definitions"


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



so basically it boils down to "If i agree with it, its a civil right, if I don't, THEN BAKE THE DAMN CAKE YOU PEASANT"

Got it. Nice to see those in favor of mob rule and against the constitution come out so cleanly.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Compare them yourself: no one is going to do your lifting but you.

You want to talk with adults, use reasonable adult definitions and terms.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Basically it means (1) YOU don't make or interpret the law with any authority, (2) YOU have to get along with society, not society with you.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Brave Sir Starkey ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger rears it's ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes Brave Sir Starkey turned about
He gallantly chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat.
Oh bravest of the brave, Sir Starkey.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Basically it means (1) YOU don't make or interpret the law with any authority, (2) YOU have to get along with society, not society with you.



Yes, massah, guess wes gots to leaves the figurin of our freedoms to our bettahs. Move alon, Move alon.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...






Bravo!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Basically it means (1) YOU don't make or interpret the law with any authority, (2) YOU have to get along with society, not society with you.
> ...



Your do not live alone in society.  End of story.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Brave Sir Starkey ran away.
> Bravely ran away, away.
> When danger rears it's ugly head
> He bravely turned his tail and fled.
> ...



 You can't write even interesting rhymes.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



It figures a progressive would use a gif of a bunch of self-congratulating Hollywood jackasses to show their own groupthink.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Brave Sir Starkey ran away.
> ...



You are the one wussing out of this conversation, wuss.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So living in society means bending to every whim of said society, no matter how minuscule or nonsensical?

This is right around where you earn your "Starkey slurps governmental dick" reply. Congrats.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

You are only emoting your angst, Marty, not conversing intelligently, as your ad hom reveals.

You will not interfere with others' marriage rights nor they yours.

This is not a "whim", which once again demonstrates you misdefine words and terms.

Not hard, huh.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Actually, you are responsible for the information you post.  I'll make a note of your Republican posting integrity and personal responsibility.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So if I post a tract from Mein Kampf, I have to agree with it?

Duh.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are only emoting your angst, Marty, not conversing intelligently, as your ad hom reveals.
> 
> You will not interfere with others' marriage rights nor they yours.
> 
> ...



Ad hominem is just a breakup between posts, and considering I figure you enjoy sucking government dick, I didn't mean an insult, slurp slurp slurp.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



If you are using it to argue in favor of your case, yup.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> > LOL it's over Right Wingers.
> ...





LOL, you didn't make any. Someone else wrote that, remember?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are only emoting your angst, Marty, not conversing intelligently, as your ad hom reveals.
> ...



There you go misdefining and ad homming, clear revelation you know you have failed in this discussion.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...





I mean, hello...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?



If three people enter into an LLC, if one of the partners died does the LLC still exist, and who gets custody of the client list?

All you have to do is look at the LLC founding docs

It's boilerplate crap


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


The bakery people weren't forced to be bakers. They chose to be bakers. If you think they are being treated in an unconstitutional manner, change the law. That's what gay people have been doing. Yet all you are doing is whining instead of being proactive.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...



Nope


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...





FYI: There's only a handful of states that require premarital blood testing.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...





I just like the diversity.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?
> ...


So your answer is that a marriage contract is like an LLC and if one member dies, the remaining members are still married?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...





If you don't respect our laws, maybe you should consider moving.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...





You're just upset because you look like a fool.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Might be, on the other hand, the founders might have agreed on dissolution, upon the death of a partner, prior to acceptance of the terms. 

Either way, boilerplate crap


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Interesting article in the Federalist:
> 
> Stop Calling It Marriage Equality
> 
> ...



Yes, very interesting. And? Did you have an opinion to discuss or do you work for the source and want more circulation?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So no survivor benefits?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Read the founding docs and any amendments. 

Capice


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Oct 8, 2014)

So, let's see here. We have been taught that something is icky poo. Nobody can say WHY it is icky poo, only that it is.  Since we have been taught this, and despite the fact no real reasons have been provided as the basis of our beliefs, we don't want all those icky-poo people to have the same rights we do. Accordingly, we need to go on message boards and fight over the use of words, because tat is the REALLY important thing, here.

Am I missing anything?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

LLCs are business entities. Not sure the comparison would be valid.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting article in the Federalist:
> ...



I think he's pretty spot on, especially about the silliness of arguing FOR gay marriage but suddenly saying it won't lead to/be against legal plural marriage.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



LOLZ.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



So I would agree with mein kampf If I stated my case is "Hitler is a fucktard who could have been stopped if the leaders at the time read the damn thing, because his whole plan was all there" ?

That's using it to argue in favor of my case, not agreeing with it. 

Your point is invalid.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 8, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.



Appropriate quote of the day:



> Josh Lyman: I like you guys that want to reduce the size of government, make it just small enough so it can fit in our bedrooms.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> LLCs are business entities. Not sure the comparison would be valid.



The boilerplate exists. No need to create a buttload of new laws.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Oct 8, 2014)

Since the definition of marriage has now been completely turned upside down, I don't see how you can now argue against other partnerships wanting to marry.
What is the argument against more than two people agreeing to be wed together ?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Right next to where straight marriage is enshrined as a civil right.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > LLCs are business entities. Not sure the comparison would be valid.
> ...


It exists for a business and it exists for a two party marriage.

It doesn't exist for multiple marriage unless you claim multiple marriage is simply a business arrangement.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



LMAO-----do you intend to tell people how to define things now ? I define you  as a partisan hack. What are you going to do about it ?


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 8, 2014)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



There  is no "straight" marriage. There is marriage and there is what homosexuals call their union.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Point you out as a fool every time you do it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



There is only marriage.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



no there is not----there are different types of marriages now. You have to embrace the difference, liberal boy.


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...





Maybe in your state you had to go through all that to get a marriage license but I didn't in my state. All hubby and I had to do was go and fill out a form. No one asked for a blood test and no one asked if we were related. We were asked our age though.

So whatever backward place you live in sure isn't where I live. 

As for a contract, I took business law in college. I learned about contracts. What I stated is all that's required for a contract. Some contracts need to have a notary emboss but that's mostly for legal court documents such as garnishments etc. 

Contrary to what you believe, gay people go to where they will get the service or goods they need. They won't go where they will be denied whatever service or goods they're looking for.

There are exceptions like when the gay person has no other option. Then they will go to the only place they can get that service or goods. Just like any other person.

You can try to turn this into something it's not but you're not going to succeed with intelligent people. Especially people who have known gay people for decades. Like I have. I even know a, gasp in horror, transgender person. Who went through the surgery for the sex change. 

There are all kinds of people in this world. Just because they're different isn't any excuse to discriminate them. 

One of the things that makes America such and exceptional place is the fact that we don't discriminate and when it happens, we can correct it. As what is happening now with marriage equality.

None of it affects you. If you're not gay then none of this will have any impact on your life in any way. Which is why I have to wonder why you care about it so much.


----------



## JFK_USA (Oct 8, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 
I would add a 4th item in that you need valid consideration for an enforceable contract but that's usually a given because of the relationship of the parties.

But you hit it on the head with the business license part. They signed a contract with the government to abide by the law and to serve the public. That's what you agreed to do. If you didn't want to do that, don't apply for a business license. Unless someone held a gun to your head or threatened some sort of violence to you or your immediate family (ie. Duress), then you are bound by the terms of the agreement in the business license contract. YOU agree to sell to the public, then YOU sell to the public without discrimination. That's the law you agree to abide by.


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 8, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...







Thank you very much Carla.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 8, 2014)

Ravi said:


> If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?


One of the many reasons why there's no marriage law written for three or more people.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 8, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> The only thing with a pox on it in this thread is opposition to gay rights.  25 states, soon to be 30, and counting.


Gays have the same rights and have had so since sodomy laws were dropped. No where in the Constitution does it pretend genders don't matter in state defined marriages.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.
> ...


Incorrect.

Marriage law is written to accommodate two equal adult partners who have made a commitment to build a life together recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is violated when the state seeks to disallow same-sex couples from entering into a marriage contract they're eligible to participate in.

That's not the case with three or more persons, for whom there is no marriage law written to accommodate such a configuration. No Equal Protection Clause violation manifests because there's no 'marriage law' to 'disallow' three or more persons from entering into.

Consequently, bringing to the debate demagoguery such as 'polygamy' or 'plural marriage' does in fact fail as a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Oct 8, 2014)

Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in _Windsor_.   Hardly.

It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 8, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in _Windsor_.   Hardly.
> 
> It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.




Windsor wasn't a 14th Amendment case.  The 14th Amendment applies to States, the case was decided based on the equal protection principals of the 5th Amendment which applies to Federal law.


>>>>


----------



## OODA_Loop (Oct 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in _Windsor_.   Hardly.
> ...



It could have been settled with the 14th as the affirming protection.

Instead it was pure 10th baby.  Purview of the State and the Feds cant deny benefits where the State says it is legal.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?
> ...


Are you saying the boilerplate between three partners is the same as if there are only two partners?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


Listen to you, you non-mainstream far right freak. 

Marriage is between two people.  There is no other kind of marriage.  Tough on that, freak boy.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 8, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...


But can the State deny benefits if the Feds say it's legal?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in _Windsor_.   Hardly.
> 
> It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.



It did no such thing.  After DOMA, Utah said it would not do benefits for federal entitlees.  The feds said that all government money would be cut off if Utah did not comply.  The state fell over backward complying.

Don't post nonsense, froota loop, please.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 8, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



No it couldn't, the case was about Federal law not State law.




OODA_Loop said:


> Instead it was pure 10th baby.  Purview of the State and the Feds cant deny benefits where the State says it is legal.



Maybe you should read the Windsor decision.

*Question Before the Court:*
"That result requires this Court now to address
whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation
of an essential part of the liberty protected by the
Fifth Amendment"

<<SNIP>>

"The Act’s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any
State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those
unions will be treated as second-class marriages for
purposes of federal law. This raises a most serious
question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. "​
*Basis of Ruling*
"The power the Constitution grants it also restrains.
And though Congress has great authority to design laws to
fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot
deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment."

<<SNIP>>

"This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA
is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person
protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."

<<SNIP>>

"By seeking to displace this protection and treating those
persons as living in marriages less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages."​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Interesting article in the Federalist:
> 
> Stop Calling It Marriage Equality
> 
> ...



There's no such thing as "Homosexual Marriage".  And this wholly without regard to the pretense to the contrary advanced by the intellectually less fortunate.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing with a pox on it in this thread is opposition to gay rights.  25 states, soon to be 30, and counting.
> ...




Wowza!


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The adult definition claims that it's between a consenting man and woman who are of legal age. Homosexuals would have a whole lot more respect if they had just gone for equal rights under the law instead of trying to pretend they were lexicons. The democrats got a lot of mileage out of their victimhood like they always do with blacks so I guess it's all good.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

dilloduck, you and the freak far right have no respect with the great majority of America.

You lost.  Get over it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2014)

R.D. said:


> All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”
> 
> 
> In a nutshell



Not really.  Polygamy and Incest, the underlying behaviors are already illegal. 

Once Lawrence got rid of all the "sodomy" laws that no one was actually enforcing, there was no logical reason to prevent marriage equality.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.
> ...



No, that's making sure that the public accommodations WE ALL SUPPORT are available to everyone.  

Get it? 

I may never use that baker, but I pay for his roads, his police protection, his utilities.  Which means if I go to him for the gayest wedding cake* ever, I don't want to hear any shit from him about how his Invisible Friend in the Sky says it's wrong.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> [
> How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.
> 
> If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
> ...



Every state in the unions has an anti-bigamy law. 

The underlying behavior is illegal.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.
> ...


It is when the state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than some are frightened and offended by gay Americans.

And bakers aren't fined because they refuse to bake a cake, they're appropriately fined because they violated public accommodations law for refusing to serve a patron for no other reason than being frightened and offended by gay Americans.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No, can't be, but that would be the third persons choice and expense, just like an LLC


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



For now, but you successfully argued it shouldn't be illegal

Geez, take credit when credit is due

What you afraid of, man the hell up


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”
> ...



Christ, do you read what you write or are you brain dead?

The laws changed by successful argument. 

YOU created the argument, now stand behind it


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Calling hetros freaks?

You can't make this chit up!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> For now, but you successfully argued it shouldn't be illegal
> 
> Geez, take credit when credit is due
> 
> What you afraid of, man the hell up



I don't think that anyone argued that there was a constitutional issue with bigamy laws.  Nor do I think anyone is actually arguing for polygamy. 

Do I have a problem with polygamy?  Meh. Not really.  We already have defacto polygamy.  One is called "the wife' and the other is called "the mistress".  

But you guys making the "slippery slope argument" just doesn't fly.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> [
> Christ, do you read what you write or are you brain dead?
> 
> The laws changed by successful argument.
> ...



The key thing here is "successful argument".  No one is arguing for polygamy right now at all. No one is bringing a court case against bigamy laws.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in _Windsor_.   Hardly.
> ...



From the majority opinion:

_*The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws which equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved. The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amend*ment.[ Windsor, 570 U.S., at 25–26 (slip op.)._


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Oct 9, 2014)

I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?

We have opened the door to redefining the definition of marriage, there is now no reason why other definitions cannot be added.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2014)

DigitalDrifter said:


> I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?
> 
> We have opened the door to redefining the definition of marriage, there is now no reason why other definitions cannot be added.


Incorrect.

No 'door' has been opened, nothing is being 'redefined,' marriage is and functions now as it did before the _Marriage Cases_ began: a union of two equal partners whose commitment is recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Consequently, three or more people cannot marry because there is no marriage law written to accommodate such a configuration.

Indeed, when same-sex couples wed they enter into a marriage contract identical to that of an opposite-sex couple.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Oct 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?
> ...



Society has redefined the definition by allowing same sex partners to wed, there's no reason why new definitions cannot now be added.
I'm aware of current laws, I'm asking for an argument against allowing more than two people to wed.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> No 'door' has been opened, nothing is being 'redefined,' marriage is and functions now as it did before the _Marriage Cases_ began: a union of two equal partners whose commitment is recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> ...


LOL. Typical double talk lying bullshit. Marriages have been one male/female pair, you couldn't get a license or state recognition for anything but. Your type wants to disregard tradition while demanding we adhere to tradition so only two can marry.

There are too many dishonest people these days, the government needs to get out of the marriage business and let people make any agreement they want with whoever they want.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



All you are doing is limiting the definition to meet your requirements. There is no logical reasoning behind your position. NONE of the marriage laws written in the past considered same sex couples, which can easily be inferred by the licenses containing the words "bride" and "groom" or some modification of each. Its the same as only two lines being available on the license. 

Top oppose plural marriage you are using the EXACT same logical construct current opponents of same sex marriage are using.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Key words "right now"


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?
> ...




Dude- You are worse than a broken clock, Never being right twice a day.

-Geaux

I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (*wife*/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

*wife*
_noun_ \ˈwīf\
: a married woman : the woman someone is married to

_plural_ *wives* 
woman

b *:*  a *woman *acting in a specified capacity —used in combination <fish_wife_>
2
*:*  a *female* partner in a marriage


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2014)

DigitalDrifter said:


> I'll ask again, what is the argument against more than two people AGREEING to be wed ?
> 
> We have opened the door to redefining the definition of marriage, there is now no reason why other definitions cannot be added.



nothing---all that matters is that they are all consenting adults. There is no other reasonable argument to prohibit multiple people from entering into a marriage. If two can, why not three ?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 9, 2014)

There is no slippery slope

Polygamy from Wiki

Recognized under civil law

Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
CAR
Comoros
Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
India1
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia

Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Myanmar
Niger
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Singapore1
Somalia
Sri Lanka1
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
UAE
Yemen
Zambia

[TBODY]
[/TBODY]Now...can someone tell me which of those countries also marries gays? 
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2014)

You didn't respond to the question. Why shouldn't 3 or more consenting adults be allowed to marry ? You're polyphobic aren't you ??


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> You didn't respond to the question. Why shouldn't 3 or more consenting adults be allowed to marry ? You're polyphobic aren't you ??


 Because there's no marriage law to accommodate 3 or more persons.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't respond to the question. Why shouldn't 3 or more consenting adults be allowed to marry ? You're polyphobic aren't you ??
> ...



You mean the law shouldn't be changed to allow these deprived people of the same "marriage benefits" that twosomes can have ? How cruel..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2014)

"Stop Calling It Marriage Equality"

Nonsense.

It is indeed about equality:

Equal protection of the law, equal access to the law, equal treatment under the law.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2014)

and if it's not equal just change around the meaning of words and create poor pitiful victims until someone changes a law.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Okay.  Next week, next month.  There's no real constituency for polygamy, dude.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 9, 2014)

The poor polygamists are hiding in the closets. Polyphobes are everywhere just waiting to mock them. Have you seen the beating Mormans are taking these days ? Hopefully one day they will be freed like the homosexuals were.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 9, 2014)

Marriage equality is marriage elasticity and end with marriage extinction. 

Masha Gessen lesbian activist.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 10, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> The poor polygamists are hiding in the closets. Polyphobes are everywhere just waiting to mock them. Have you seen the beating Mormans are taking these days ? Hopefully one day they will be freed like the homosexuals were.



Your cult isn't taking a beating when one of it's members gets nominated as the candidate of a major political party.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Yes, they are fined for not baking a cake, and you know it. 

Stop hiding your religious bigotry with semantics.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The lack of a law does not prevent rights from being protected, at least that's the current path we seem to be on. 

Again, all the reasons used to advocate SSM can be used identically to advocate Plural marriage.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Anti-bigamy laws are usually predicated on the other parties not knowing they are married to someone else who is married. Its the inherent fraud that makes bigamy a crime, not just a violation of a contract.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It only takes 1 (or at least 3)


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Stop Calling It Marriage Equality"
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> ...



Same sex coupling would require no protection under Roe V Wade. 

Equality ?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Not really.


----------



## PratchettFan (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
It isn't a slippery slope, just an equitable application of law.  If three women and five me want to enter into a marriage contract, that is their business.  If the state is going to be in the marriage business, then they need to do so without discrimination.  Other than using the courts to resolve contractual disputes, the government has no business in it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure the Mormons knew exactly who they were or weren't married to.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What Fundie mormons do now is have one "wife" and the rest just co-habitate. and only in states with Mormons are the laws set around knowing plural marriage, not true bigamy, with its implied fraud.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 10, 2014)

R.D. said:


> All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”
> 
> 
> In a nutshell



What's wrong with defining legal civil marriage, if the original definition under the law is biased and represents a clear violation of civil rights?

We *redefined* being a black person in America after the Civil War.  Was that a crime?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage?   But what about the cakes?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”
> ...



And that was done via amendment subsequent legislation. What is happening now (except in states that legislated the change) is running to a judge and having said judge make crap up.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 10, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”
> ...


Well it doesn't, but as the op states that ship has sailed.

But the valid point is you've only redefined it to support gay marriage to the exclusion of other groups who may wish to marry.   Where is the equality for those other groups?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 10, 2014)

R.D. said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



Any 'group' that can claim sufficient similarity to monogamous adult unions that are recognized by the law as civil marriage have the right to claim equal protection.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 10, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


So monogamy is the starting point of your hate?  You're a pluraphobe?  You hate children?  I'm being a little sarcastic, but hate and homophobe are among the terms blindly tossed out to those of us who support traditional marriage. 

Husband and wife have been redefined to suit the new need, but you're not willing to go farther?


----------



## NLT (Oct 10, 2014)

R.D. said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 10, 2014)

What about the bisexuals? Why are homosexuals so bigoted against them by banning a man from marrying a man and a woman? Such hatred!


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> What about the bisexuals? Why are homosexuals so bigoted against them by banning a man from marrying a man and a woman? Such hatred!



The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.

Why is it that morons think bisexuals must have both partners at once?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?

Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

NLT said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Absolutely false statement by you.  Marriage has been two people in Europe since the Roman Age.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

It's cute watching the hetero fascists gnashing their teeth and stomping their feet.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.
> 
> Why is it that morons think bisexuals must have both partners at once?


You're the moron by suiting your own pleasures and denying another theirs while preaching against intolerance. You haven't even offered an argument against it, just a retarded emotional reaction. No one expects a marriage to be temporary and switch to another off and on, that isn't why people marry.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Being wrong never stops you.  You get points for that


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.
> ...



A fraudulent statement, that, weasel.  No one is denying you your pleasure: you may marry as you wish the person of your choice.

If your pleasure is to deny others that choice, sux to be you, because it won't change.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Look---now Jake's a reactionary !


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Awww, not keeping to the talking points you want?

You don't get to define the parameters of the debate


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.
> ...



I'm not denying anyone anything. If polygamists feel that their cases are strong enough to challenge prohibitions on plural marriages, I wish them the best of luck. Their fight, however, is not my fight and has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays. If YOU believe that there is no societal harm in allowing them, it really has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays.

Since you seem to think that plural marriages are inevitable, perhaps you can tell me where this has happened. It's not like gays haven't been marrying for over a decade now legally. Where has any of the slippery slope fallacies you cling to actually come to fruition?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The most ridiculous aspect of that fact is that none of the states where bakers or photographers were sued, were marriage equality states. The issues of PA laws and marriage equality are completely unrelated.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



*(in other words, a 'dilloduck')*

*Reactionary Define Reactionary at Dictionary.com*
*reactionary*
[ree-ak-shuh-ner-ee] IPA Syllables


Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin


adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
noun, plural reactionaries.
2.
a reactionary person.

*reactionary*
[ree-ak-shuh-ner-ee] IPA Syllables


Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin


adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
noun, plural reactionaries.
2.
a reactionary person.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Actually they are very related, and like most Engineers I don't just thing of the current issue, but several issues ahead. 

You do note that I don't have issues with gay marriage in states that voted on it legislatively.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

You do note, Marty, that those of us who understand American law and Article III of the Constitution have no problems with the role of courts in civil liberties.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 10, 2014)

Kudos to the homosexuals who smashed the definition of marriage. After centuries of it being an institution for one man and one woman the powder is now primed for any definition to be acceptable. The important thing to remember is that people who love each other all should be allowed to be called married and benefit from any right derived from it. Especially the right to sue for divorce.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You do note, Marty, that those of us who understand American law and Article III of the Constitution have no problems with the role of courts in civil liberties.



Only when they give you what you want. Stop pretending to not be a hypocrite.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> I'm not denying anyone anything. If polygamists feel that their cases are strong enough to challenge prohibitions on plural marriages, I wish them the best of luck. Their fight, however, is not my fight and has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays. If YOU believe that there is no societal harm in allowing them, it really has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays.
> 
> Since you seem to think that plural marriages are inevitable, perhaps you can tell me where this has happened. It's not like gays haven't been marrying for over a decade now legally. Where has any of the slippery slope fallacies you cling to actually come to fruition?


Where plural marriages have happened? Pretty much everywhere man has roamed the Earth. Which is in stark contrast to homosexual marriages which has enjoyed none until very recently. I also don't understand how you can try to intellectualize it away since a bisexual would by definition be attracted to a member of his or her own gender. Why no love for them? 

I personally think governments will bail on the issue since it's taken the slippery slope path of least resistance. If a minority can dictate to everyone else what marriage should be then it's just a matter of political pressure. They'll say screw it at some point.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.

Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.

Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Oct 10, 2014)

I'm sure that the Right will continue to beat this dead horse well into the 22nd century, just like they are with ACA, and like they did with the 1950's Civil Rights movement.

"To the rear, MARCH"!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Oct 10, 2014)

I confess, however, that I kind of like threads like these, where the Right continues to fight the war LONG after the war is over. It serves to remind us that we can, and often do, win battles against those that want us to return to 1950, when being a liberal meant that one had no real problem with Ricky and Lucy sharing a double bed.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 10, 2014)

I look forward to the Republican party campaigning on polygamy.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.


You can't read. Gay marriages are the slippery slope and there is no bottom, that was the point. The irony is you start with "...falsely believes".


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.
> 
> Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.
> 
> Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.



Redressing problems in society does not mean allowing them to rewrite law. Its almost as if you would prefer an Oligarchy vs. a Republic.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> I'm sure that the Right will continue to beat this dead horse well into the 22nd century, just like they are with ACA, and like they did with the 1950's Civil Rights movement.
> 
> "To the rear, MARCH"!



And the "over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings " mentality of progressives is SO much better. 

EVER FORWARD (hey there's a cliff up there) FORWARD
(seriously we should at least slow down...) FORRRRWAAARDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!! (splash).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.
> ...



The semantics are clear, and you are still wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.
> ...


  Judicial review and interpretation are not rewriting.  Get that out of your head.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Okay.  I guess I really am a radical on the issue of marriage.  I *don't* cringe at the idea of polygamy, or, for that matter, incest.  I do agree with Ravi that, were we to legalize polygamy, then some of the laws and policies regarding the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of spouses would have to be reworked.

But, ultimately, I really don't give so much as a single flying fuck who is marrying whom.  I know that *my* marriage to my wife is sacred.  *My* marriage to my wife is the second most important relationship in my life (me kids actually come first).  *My* marriage means to me today exactly what it meant to me yesterday, last week, last  month, or last year.  How *someone else* chooses to define *their* marriage(s), and the important people in *their* lives means absolutely nothing *to me*.

Personally, I don't know why the supporters of Marriage Equality would suddenly get all skitchy when the question suddenly turns to a type of relationship that they *personally* find "icky".  This is a message to my Progressive friends: *Fucking grow a set!!!*  For fuck's sake!  Have the courage of your fucking convictions!

I. Do. Not. CARE!!  who other people want to marry, and spend their lives with.  This is true of opposite-sex couples.  This is true of same-sex couples.  This is true of brothers, and sisters.  This is true of multiple partners of your choice.  So long as we are talking about consenting adults, there is simply no romantic grouping that you can suggest that makes me feel so icky that I am willing to abandon my principle that I have no right to tell other people that they have to behave in their personal lives in accordance with my personal ethics, and morals.

Moving on...


----------



## Ravi (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Okay.  I guess I really am a radical on the issue of marriage.  I *don't* cringe at the ides of polygamy, or, for that matter, incest.  I do agree with Ravi that, were we to legalize polygamy, then some of the laws and policies regarding the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of spouses would have to be reworked.
> 
> But, ultimately, I really don't give so much as a single flying fuck who is marrying whom.  I know that *my* marriage to my wife is sacred.  *My* marriage to my wife is the second most important relationship in my life (me kids actually come first).  *My* marriage means to me today exactly what it meant to me yesterday, last week, last  month, or last year.  How *someone else* chooses to define *their* marriage(s), and the important people in *their* lives means absolutely nothing *to me*.
> 
> ...


I agree except I do not think "progressives" think polygamy is skitchy. The OP coughed up a strawman argument when he implied that.

Gay people object to the comparison with polygamy, imo, because SSM is not equal to polygamy. Like I pointed out, current marriage law does not have to be changed to "allow" SSM but it would need to be changed to "allow" polygamy.

If someone wants to change the law, that's fine, it is up to them to make the effort.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 10, 2014)

Two person marriages are inherently unfair to bisexuals who will be legally required to choose whether they marry a same sex partner and be gay for life or marry an opposite sex partner and be heterosexual for life.   Plural marriages are the only accommodation that gives bisexuals fairness.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Katzndogz thinks marriage is about sexuality rather than the love of two people that bind them together.

It is not the sex, it is the love, katzndogz.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Two person marriages are inherently unfair to bisexuals who will be legally required to choose whether they marry a same sex partner and be gay for life or marry an opposite sex partner and be heterosexual for life.   Plural marriages are the only accommodation that gives bisexuals fairness.


Okay.  Then, by all means, lobby for that?  And your point?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Judicial review is meant for clarification, and to remove laws that are completely against the written intent of the constitution, not for creating new law, which is happening now. 

And I note you gloss over my accusation of being an Oligarch-o-phile. 

Why do you feel the need to be ruled by unelected lawyers?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
Aren't you the one telling everyone we can't call it marriage equality?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You can call it anything you want, the point is the term isn't want you think it means, or want it to mean. 

Like all progressive points its a simplification, much like the bleating of "four legs good, two legs bad".


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



So it was a "new law" that allowed blacks to marry whites? Interesting take on Loving. Very unique.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

There is no written intent in the Constitution that restricts marriage to that of opposite sex.  Show me where it does if I have missed it, Marty.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You are mistaken the role of courts, obviously, endorsing a very twisted, limited role unintended by the Founders.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The only one twisting the roles of the court is your ilk. The founders gave a process to modify the constitution, the amendment process. Only government loving ninnies prefer 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers over their fellow citizens.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no written intent in the Constitution that restricts marriage to that of opposite sex.  Show me where it does if I have missed it, Marty.



Doesn't have to be in there, if its not referred as a federal power, or left to the people, it is the realm of the State Legislatures, pure and simple.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Why is having to write a new law such an impediment? If you people are soooo for equality, why are stopping once you get what YOU want? Hmmm???


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 10, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
> 
> Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.



Then why are you advocating for the government to _force_ people into homos' private lives?
Geez, democrats are so stupid. They should not be allowed to vote.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > There is no written intent in the Constitution that restricts marriage to that of opposite sex.  Show me where it does if I have missed it, Marty.
> ...



That argument left the house in 1868.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
> ...



Whose homosexual life into which you are being forced, Rosh?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


Any homos who are legally married in the name of their homosexuality. Legal marriage forces recognition, subsidization and concessions in the name of homo buttfucking/muffdiving. Why must we all be forced into that activity?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Not at all.  Into whose life are you being forced?  Answer the question.

If you are merely wahing that "I don't want to be part of a country that has marriage equality," well, then, it sux to be you.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So why not abolish the states then? The Equal protection law is not absolute, which is what you are assuming. 

Its funny that anything in the constitution is absolute when YOU want it, and can be ignored when you don't want it.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not at all.  Into whose life are you being forced?  Answer the question.
> 
> If you are merely wahing that "I don't want to be part of a country that has marriage equality," well, then, it sux to be you.


Are you that dense? Read my post again.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


You really don't seem to understand how the process works.  You're right.  There is a process for modifying the Constitution.  Then, once it has been modified, there is an entire branch of the government whose job it is to decide if the new modification is Constitutionally valid, or not.  If it is, then the modification stands.  If it isn't, then that branch of the government tells everyone they made a mistake with their new amendment.

Guess what that branch of government is...

And for bonus points, guess what that branch has clearly said, repeatedly, about same-sex marriage bans...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > There is no written intent in the Constitution that restricts marriage to that of opposite sex.  Show me where it does if I have missed it, Marty.
> ...


Which is perfectly fine, right up until you run into the 14th amendment.  At that point, the states lose the right to make rules about marriage that treats one group of citizens differently than another.  If you have a problem with that, you should lobby to have the 14th repealed.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
> ...


So, telling *you* that *you* do not get to mandate who a gay person does, and does not marry is "forcing government into homos' lives"?

So, I guess, if were able to get a ban on "dinner table prayer", then you would be against any court trying to overturn that, because you wouldn't want to "force government" into the private lives of Christians, right?

Do you see how stupid your logic sounds?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Why does this offend you so much?  What effect does this have on *your marriage?*


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Katzndogz thinks marriage is about sexuality rather than the love of two people that bind them together.
> 
> It is not the sex, it is the love, katzndogz.


Right------that's why the word "sexual preference" gets thrown about. Who are you kidding ? Marriage has everything to do with sex.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

You pervs toss the term around.

Sex is not the end all be all of marriage because you can have sex without marriage.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz thinks marriage is about sexuality rather than the love of two people that bind them together.
> ...



It may have something to do with sex, that's up to the married couple. It has nothing to do with procreation. 

I guess you never heard that a couple can put a penny in a jar for every time they have sex before marriage and take one out every time they have sex after marriage. The jar lasts the entire marriage.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


Are you being obtuse or are you that dense?
I said nothing about preventing anyone from doing anyone. I don't want the government forcing me to acknowledge a homo doing a homo. There are no ramifications that can impact me or anyone else so there is no need for the government to force that.  With heteros the creation of another human is the ramification that can affect others so the coercion is relevant. But not with homos.
That is very clear. Now re-read and when you actually get it _then_ respond.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Another disjointed, dense response. I said nothing about my marriage. Where did you get that?
Anytime anyone is forced upon you by the government in the name of an absolutely personal and irrelevant behavior everyone should be offended. That is fascism. OK? Get it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Hetero fascism is the effort to destroy marriage equality.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Okay...before I can  hope to respond to this, you're gonna need to clarify your meaning of this statement, preferably without the sophomoric characterizations.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


See?  It's the highlighted part that doesn't make any sense.  How, *exactly*, are they being "forced' on you?  They want to marry *each other*.  How, precisely, is that "forcing" them on you?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > There is no written intent in the Constitution that restricts marriage to that of opposite sex.  Show me where it does if I have missed it, Marty.
> ...


And yet state legislators cannot make laws that take away rights without a compelling reason.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Well that was just cute as hell-------it MAY have something to do with sex ? Thanks for the confirmation


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

The queer brigade won't like these NEW poll findings!



> Insistent media messages claim surging and overwhelming public support for redefinition of marriage but recent numbers from major surveys and the Census Bureau tell a very different story.
> 
> In late September, a Pew Center poll found less than half of respondents – 49% to be exact – saying that they “favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally” – a sharp five point _drop_ since February. Without the biased wording of the question, gay marriage might have received even weaker public backing: if a survey asks you if you want to “allow” other people to do something they say they ardently desire, you’d have to be deeply committed to traditional matrimony to say no. Had Pew asked “Do you want your government to redefine marriage so that male-male and female-female couples are treated identically to traditional marriages?” the response to sweeping change could have been still less favorable.
> 
> ...



You cannot copy and paste and entire article, only an excerpt.  Thanks


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Yes, *may*. There is nothing in civil marriage code that says a civil marriage must be consummated...that's religion's thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

Sexuality and procreative ability and intention are not requirements for marriage.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


Surely your response is not to suggest that sex is about procreation?  You don't really believe that is the only reason that people have sex, do you?


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sexuality and procreative ability and intention are not requirements for marriage.



I didn't claim that sex was a requirement.  I said sex had something to do with real  marriages. You can stop the strawman stuff anytime.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

Real marriage can exist without sex, you silly goof.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Real marriage can exist without sex, you silly goof.



rare as hens teeth----just the kind of cause you liberals go gaga over.  The rare exceptions.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sexuality and procreative ability and intention are not requirements for marriage.
> ...


No one...well..*few of us*, are denying that *sex* has anything to do with marriage - only *procreation*.  I'm still waiting to hear you acknowledge that there is a difference between the two.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

Why in the hell would homosexuals bother with sex if it was only about procreation. Now they can have sex for pleasure within the sanction of marriage.If their spouse cheats on them they also have grounds to sue the hell out of them for divorce. It's very romantic.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Real marriage can exist without sex, you silly goof.
> ...


According to whom,  you goof?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

It's life, you goof.  Get over it.

Oh, and you want to have a laugh?  Read vigi's posting above: completely twisted the numbers out of shape.

The issue of marriage equality will have very little effect on the elections.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Why in the hell would homosexuals bother with sex if it was only about procreation. Now they can have sex for pleasure within the sanction of marriage.If their spouse cheats on them they also have grounds to sue the hell out of them for divorce. It's very romantic.


It is, isn't it?  Now homosexuals can experience all of the same soul-devouring wretchedness of marital bliss that the rest of us have had to suffer through for centuries.

Bully for them.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

Now maybe polygamists will be allowed the same rights. I can't see why anyone should be denied.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Now maybe polygamists will be allowed the same rights. I can't see why anyone should be denied.


In theory, I would agree.  In practice, polygamy may be a little harder to legalize, only because there are a number of laws that would need to be re-written to accommodate multiple marital partners.  The same is not true of same-sex marriage.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.



If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

TooTall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.
> ...


Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten.  For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed.  Now, when there are in fact, *two* spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


TooTall?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Oct 11, 2014)

I predict that this issue will be settled on the Right within 50 years of the legalization of same sex marriage in every state. The Right will then go back to debating the wisdom of giving women the vote, which, I think, was only marginally accepted before being distracted over the gay marriage issue....


----------



## TooTall (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



That is why God made lawyers.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



That's it ?  It would be too difficult ? Homosexuals would have never accepted that. They are abusive and discriminatory laws. fix them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

No, because there is no significant call for them.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Well, that may be true.  However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed.  Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward *wanting* polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage.  The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest.  We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



absolutely--you only actually cared about homosexuals. Everyone else can get screwed.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Why?  Is there an army of polygamists hiding out there in the US that we don't know about?  You make this argument as if this is how same-sex marriage came about.  Like we started demanding that gays get to marry, and then suddenly all these gays just appeared out of thin air.  You get that's not how it went, right?

So, why should we fight the religious zealots all over again, and spend all that time, and energy fighting to change laws that there is no one begging to be changed?

As I said, *if and when* people start coming forward demanding their right to practice polygamy, then I will gladly support them, and assist them in their fight to change whatever laws need changing.  However,. I have no intention of fighting to change laws, *just because I can*.  That is a stupid waste of time and energy.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


You missed the point.  I don't give a shit about the homosexuals, either.  That's *why* I fought for them.  Because they stood up demanding their rights, and giving them to them cost me *nothing*.  When polygamists start standing up making those demands, i'll fight for them, too.  When brother's and sisters stand up demanding the right to marry each other, I'll fight for them, too.  I just see no point in fighting for something there is no interest in having.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

How many have to stand up  before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> How many have to stand up  before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?


How about 1.  Can you cite a source that presents a single case of someone wanting polygamy legalized?  How about incest?  Can you provide a source that presents even one person who is calling for this?

No?  Well, come on back when you can.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> How many have to stand up  before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?


This doesn't make any sense.

There is no 'equality' for something that doesn't exist, such as 'marriage' for three or more persons.

Your failed and ridiculous attempts to obfuscate the issue with red herring fallacies is tedious and inane.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > How many have to stand up  before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?
> ...



I'm overwhelmed by your compassion


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

duck can't come up with one calling for legalization of polygamy, yet has no compassion for more than 20mm LGBT.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > How many have to stand up  before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?
> ...



Three and moresomes who love each other ought to be granted the same protection and rights as all the other homosexuals and heterosexuals. Why on earth would we forbid love like that to flourish ? damn pluraphobes . How will it hurt them ?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


Compassion for whom?  All of the poor people that want polygamy, and don't exist?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


Okay.  Simply show me some of those, and I will be more than happy to support them...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Oct 11, 2014)

It is important to the Right that gays not be given the right to marry, because it would add lesbians and gays to other groups that they can no longer feel superior to, like African-Americans, women, atheists, citizens that don't speak English (but have the same rights as they do), etc., etc.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 11, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> It is important to the Right that gays not be given the right to marry, because it would add lesbians and gays to other groups that they can no longer feel superior to, like African-Americans, women, atheists, citizens that don't speak English (but have the same rights as they do), etc., etc.



How silly. It's simple to find someone to feel superior too. Ask any liberal. They feel superior to every right winger that ever existed.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 11, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
> 
> Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.
> 
> MYOB



/thread. No use looking through any other posts.


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.
> 
> Call them something different, because the are different.


Only an idiot thinks that a loving, committed relationship is anything other than a loving committed relationship based solely on the gender of the people involved.

A marriage is a marriage.  So, call it what it is.


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.
> ...


Only a tyrant dictates that homosexuals be called the same name we call heterosexuals.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Nobody is saying anything about what you call homosexuals.  However, a marriage is a marriage.  That isn't tyranny; it's fact.


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I can not use the term, "homosexual", in a discussion about homosexuals?

There you have it, homosexual activists must prevent people from speaking the truth.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


What *are* you babbling about?  Who told you you can't use the term homosexual?


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Sorry, your last post was a bit incoherent, what was your intent in denigrating my use of the term, homosexual.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > It is important to the Right that gays not be given the right to marry, because it would add lesbians and gays to other groups that they can no longer feel superior to, like African-Americans, women, atheists, citizens that don't speak English (but have the same rights as they do), etc., etc.
> ...


It isn't a matter of "feel".


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.
> 
> Call them something different, because the are different.


The marriage contract they enter into is not different, however; the law is the same regardless the gender configuration. Marriage is two consenting adult partners participating in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said: ↑

“How silly. It's simple to find someone to feel superior too. Ask any liberal. They feel superior to every right winger that ever existed.”


Ask any liberal and he'd tell you that you're ridiculous.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support?  Child abuse comes to mind.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dilloduck said: ↑
> 
> “How silly. It's simple to find someone to feel superior too. Ask any liberal. They feel superior to every right winger that ever existed.”
> 
> ...



Is that a denial?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> [
> 
> What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support?  Child abuse comes to mind.



Yes, because the Catholic Clergy has done such a good job preventing that sort of thing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said: ↑
> ...


It's recognition of the fact that the post was ridiculous.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


This fails as a straw man fallacy and is also ridiculous.


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.
> ...


Yes I understand you want to call all things homosexual anything but homosexual. 

The only way the Homosexuals win, is by changing the meaning of words, by not using any word that describes who they are, by killing any speech that speaks the truth.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


That you perceive the issue in terms of 'winning' and losing' is both sad and telling.

Everyone 'wins' when all Americans are afforded their comprehensive civil liberties.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2014)

Perversion is perversion, no matter what the phukking courts call it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Perversion is perversion, no matter what the phukking courts call it.


Your ignorance, fear, and hate are noted, along with your contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2014)

The perversions of fear and hatred and demagoguery from the far right are disturbing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Far more children are abused by "religious" adults than atheists.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Perversion is perversion, no matter what the phukking courts call it.
> ...


Your insistence upon labeling opposition viewpoints (traditional religious ones, no less) as 'ignorance', 'fear' and 'hate' are noted, in counterpoint.

Also, I have the greatest respect for the Constitution, case law, and the rule of law.

Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man.

It is only the weakening of social mores in The West and a hyper-extension of the admirable principle of egalitarianism to accommodate the perverse, and subsequent sheeple-caliber go-with-the-flow judicial activism, that have empowered homosexual behaviors to the extent accommodated in our present age.

Homosexuality is wrong.

The courts have it wrong.

But, like so many others who stand in opposition to it, I will abide by the law, until the law can be changed and coerced to overthrow this perversity.

That, too, is respect for the Constitution, its case law, and the Rule of Law.

Slipping into Attack Dog mode at the slightest hint of opposition is a well-known tactic of the LGBT political machine.

Come January 20, 2017, the nation may be fortunate enough to find a leader capable of reversing this most unfortunate, unhealthy, and unclean trend, in favor of homosexuals.

Most of your opposition is actually fairly well-informed, courageous enough to take your brickbats, and filled with pity and loathing for homosexual behaviors and their practitioners; the polar opposite of ignorance, fear and hate.

But do continue to _perceive_ the Opposition in that vein.

That will make the eventual (and inevitable) take-down all the easier, and all the sweeter.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I didn't say atheists abused children. I merely asked if immoral atheists would give a shit and support it.  And, a religious person would not abuse a child.  A "religious" person might.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:

“Homosexuality is wrong.

The courts have it wrong.”


And you are wrong.

As a fact of law homosexuality is not 'wrong,' as a fact of law the courts are correct.

You are of course at liberty to believe homosexuality is 'wrong' in the errant, subjective context of your ignorance, fear, and hate – but as a matter of the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law you are indeed wrong.

Moreover, this has nothing to do with 'labeling,' it has to do with those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples failing to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of the states denying same-sex couples their civil liberties. Absent any objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples their civil liberties, the only motive remaining is unwarranted animus toward homosexual persons, a desire to disadvantage them legally, and to make them different from everyone else – solely because of who they are.

Consequently, laws seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



You certainly implied it.  You do not have the integrity to stand squarely for what you believe.  Cultsmasher in that sense could teach you how to talk the talk.  You are despicable.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2014)

Slipping into Attack Dog mode at the slightest hint of opposition is a well-known tactic of the far right reactionary thug machine.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> “Homosexuality is wrong.
> 
> ...


Oh, nolo contendre - no contest - the courts did, indeed, do what they were obliged to do, given the present state of the law.

It's just that their predecessors found ways to circumvent those same challenges, earlier, while our current crop of jurists chose not to.

Pity.

Still, if the courts require a condemnatory stance against homosexuality, in a legal framework, the Opposition may be able to construct such a mechanism in future.



> ..._You are of course at liberty to believe homosexuality is 'wrong' in the errant, subjective context of your ignorance, fear, and hate_...


There is nothing errant, subjective, ignorant, fearful nor hateful about perceiving homosexuality as 'wrong'.

It merely contradicts your (you, apparently, and those who perceive it the same way you do) position, so, it is in your best interests, and the advancement of the LGBT agenda, to attempt to portray critics in such a light, and to attempt to discredit their opinion, by any means, fair or foul - including knee-jerk attack-dog tactics and name-calling, etc.



> ...but as a matter of the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law you are indeed wrong...


Perhaps... then again, perhaps not.

The Constitution, and, indeed, all subordinate law, is, first and foremost, a matter of interpretation.

Today's interpretations can easily be overthrown by a subsequent interpretation in future.

Such a thing has happened many times over the past 230 -odd years of our Republic's existence.



> ...Moreover, this has nothing to do with 'labeling,' it has to do with those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples failing to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of the states denying same-sex couples their civil liberties. Absent any objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples their civil liberties, the only motive remaining is unwarranted animus toward homosexual persons, a desire to disadvantage them legally, and to make them different from everyone else – solely because of who they are...


The animus is not unwarranted.

Their critics believe them to be wrong - filthy, unclean aberrations and abominations.



> ...Consequently, laws seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.


One angle would be to find homosexuality to be harmful to the Republic and its citizens in some manner or another.

Once (and if) accomplished, the law can be made to work against such a danger, with the well-being of society overriding any previously-accommodated individual concerns.

Whether that ever actually materializes or not is another matter, but every new Administration and its SCOTUS appointees will have input into future legal dealings with this perversity.

What tickles the hell out of me is the arrogance of the LGBT community in perceiving that the battle is over and that the war has been won.

Frankly, I get the impression that this is just beginning, and that it could drag on for years, or decades, before the dust actually settles.

But, that's where I pack-away my crystal ball, because anything is possible in the future.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2014)

The only people being "denied" something, are sexual deviants who want to change marriage so as to include their sexual deviancy. Under any current law of any state, a homosexual can obtain the same exact marriage license as a straight person, in fact, they will not even ask if you are a homosexual. So there is nothing being denied to homosexuals except the right to change and modify marriage to include their sexual behavior. 

I am a Constitutionalist, I believe in the Constitution. When it says that we cannot afford certain rights to one group of people without affording those rights to all other groups, I believe that is fundamental "equal protection" and our obligation under the Constitution. Therefore, if marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, it also has to include pedophiles, people who fuck animals, polygamists, necrophiliacs, or any other sexual proclivity who wishes to have their deviancy legitimized under the law. There is no slippery slope, the slope has been removed entirely. It's now just a bottomless drop into the immoral abyss... no slope... no slipping. 

Now, instead of opening up this can of immoral worms that no one is going to want to deal with in the future, instead of insisting that government protect and sanction a sexual lifestyle which it will constitutionally have to protect for all sexual lifestyles, why not simply change how government deals with domestic relationships? Adopt a reform to comprehensive civil unions, where the government only recognizes a universal 2-party contract and not "marriage" at all. 

Nope...not good enough for those who push for gay marriage. You see, this isn't about gay couples getting rights being denied at all. It is a radical leftist attempt to destroy the moral underpinnings of society. To take a big steamy dump on the Church and religious sanctity of marriage. THAT is what they are after, THAT is what they want.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


No.  My intent was to ridicule your laughable claim that you are not being allowed to use the term homosexual.  The part that made it so funny was that you did that *while using the term homosexual*!


----------



## initforme (Oct 12, 2014)

Its none of my business what two consenting adults do.  If you believe in less gov't then gay marriage is a non issue for you.  As a married with children heterosexual man how does gay marriage threaten me?  Answer?  It doesn't.   Take a look at the greed on wall St and what happens there... talk about immoral


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Ravi said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Well tell Mr Handle that---they were his words.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

initforme said:


> Its none of my business what two consenting adults do.  If you believe in less gov't then gay marriage is a non issue for you.  As a married with children heterosexual man how does gay marriage threaten me?  Answer?  It doesn't.   Take a look at the greed on wall St and what happens there... talk about immoral



Seriously-----and the actions of politicians make the concept of plural marriages tame


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I didn't impy anything dipshit.  I merely suggested that an immoral atheist that doesn't give a shit about same sex marriage and polygamy and incest and still supports them probably supports child abuse.

Do you support all of the above, and I don't have a problem stating that I do not.  I consider them immoral, depraved, perverted and disgusting.  Is that square enough for you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> I am a Constitutionalist, I believe in the Constitution. When it says that we cannot afford certain rights to one group of people without affording those rights to all other groups, I believe that is fundamental "equal protection" and our obligation under the Constitution. Therefore, if marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, it also has to include *pedophiles, people who fuck animals, polygamists, necrophiliacs, or any other sexual proclivity who wishes to have their deviancy legitimized under the law*. There is no slippery slope, the slope has been removed entirely. It's now just a bottomless drop into the immoral abyss... no slope... no slipping.



Wow, this has to be the dumbest thing you've said yet. 

Okay, let's look at what a marriage is- a legal contract between two adults to form a family.  this requires two adults capable of making an agreement and accepting responsibilities. 

So pedophiles can't have marriages because children can't knowingly consent under the law. 
Animals can't consent under the law, as they aren't self-aware. 
Corpses can't consent because they aren't alive to consent. 

So really, that only leaves "Polygamists".  And while I have no problem with polygamy if everyone involved is a consenting adult, the reality is that we don't allow people to make a marriage contract if they already have one with someone else.   



Boss said:


> Nope...not good enough for those who push for gay marriage. You see, this isn't about gay couples getting rights being denied at all. It is a radical leftist attempt to destroy the moral underpinnings of society. To take a big steamy dump on the Church and religious sanctity of marriage. THAT is what they are after, THAT is what they want.



If you were truly a "constitutionalist", you'd know the Church has no say in the constitutionality of the issue. The constitution clearly spells out that the government has nothing to do with the church or vice-versa. 

Some churches were performing gay marriages before they were legal.  Others never will.  

And I don't think that the moral underpinnings of society are based on a bunch of hucksters telling people there's an imaginary fairy in the sky worried about what kind of sex they are having.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2014)

initforme said:


> Its none of my business what two consenting adults do.  If you believe in less gov't then gay marriage is a non issue for you.  As a married with children heterosexual man how does gay marriage threaten me?  Answer?  It doesn't.   Take a look at the greed on wall St and what happens there... talk about immoral



But it DOES affect you, it affects us all. We have to live in the society we create. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do, but that doesn't mean it's none of my business what government sanctions. 

And what the hell do you want to do about Wall Street? Shut it down and ban capitalism? Ordain a dictator who will decide what we'll pay for shit and if we can even have it? Because that is the alternative to Wall Street and free market capitalism.... problem is, it has never worked out very well for the masses.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Okay.  Your argument fails on three points.  Allow me to point them out for you:

*Ad hominem:* "...immoral atheists".  This is a form of logical fallacy.  It relies on attacking your opponent directly, while ignoring the content of his argument, to avoid responding to the actual argument with a rational, reasoned, logical response.  Such an emotional response usually indicates that the person employing the attack has run out of logical things to say, and simply does not wish to admit defeat.

*Red Herring:* "Child abuse comes to mind."  This is a text book case.  This is rarely cited logical fallacy; mostly because most debaters confuse red herrings for the strawman argument.  The Red Herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic.  You see, nothing in this discussion legitimizes bringing up child abuse.  That should not, in any way, be mistaken  for an admission that your stupid red herring cannot be refuted - only that this particular discussion is neither the time, nor place for such a debate.

And finally, back to "immoral atheists".  There are two problems with your little ad hominem.  First, like most religious zealots, you *presume* that just because a person does not happen to believe your little fairy tail about the Magic Man  in the Sky who is going to make everything okay by "sending" his kid to be brutalized and murdered at the hands of violent, stupid men, that this means that person has *no morals*.  This is simply not true.  It only means that they have *a different set of morals from you*.  Second, you presume, apparently since you directed this at me, that *I* am an atheist, simply because I am not a Christian.  You do get that there are a plethora of theologies, and religions that are outside of the three that grew out of the Middle East Monotheistic El Yeshua worship, right?

By all means, do lemme know when you'd like to return to a discussion that actually responds to what I said with logic.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Actually, it's not, Clayton.  Actually it's a Red Herring.  It's an easy mistake to make, as the two are very similar.   The difference is that the strawman attempts to introduce the irrelevant topic as an extension of something that the opponent has actually said, while the Red Herring just throws a whole new topic into the argument, with no point of reference at all.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.



Ours is based on treating people decently. 

No magic sky pixies required.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> ...But it DOES affect you, it affects us all. We have to live in the society we create. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do, but that doesn't mean it's none of my business what government sanctions...


This was well said.

I, for one, am not real keen on the idea that (nowadays) my government is leaning towards tolerating such perverse and unclean behaviors and lifestyle out in the open.

I want my government to reclaim its collective sanity and to reestablish a modicum of traditional moral perception into its dealings on the subject.

Whether that happens in future remains to be seen.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.
> ...



That's already covered by religion


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Actually, it is not the Homosexuals who attempted to change the meaning of words - that would be the religious zealots, and the moralists, who attempted to revise the definition of marriage to include a restriction based on their religious, and moralistic desires to force people to behave the way they want them to.  The Courts simply said, "Nope.  You don't get to do that.  Marriage is guaranteed to everyone."  The moralist do that a lot.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sexuality and procreative ability and intention are not requirements for marriage.
> ...



But it does not have to. There is nothing in the civil marriage code requiring consummation.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Uh, no, actually, it predates Christianity- the Greek Philosophers thought of it first - and doesn't require a religious component.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Perversion is perversion, no matter what the phukking courts call it.


Actually that is absolutely not true.  "Perversion" is an entirely subjective term, which is why it has no business being used as a measure of what laws should legitimately be put into place.

Allow me to be clear.  I am, in no way, saying that homosexuality is not a perversion.  However, I am also not saying that it *is*.  I am merely saying that whether it is or not, is a personal moral decision, and personal decision should *never* be used as a basis for Law.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



oh please-----homosexuals demanded that the law be changed to benefit those who were SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to the same sex.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ...But it DOES affect you, it affects us all. We have to live in the society we create. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do, but that doesn't mean it's none of my business what government sanctions...
> ...



I guess I have a different idea of what I consider "Perverse" and "unclean".  

Two people who love each other being able to get married, meh, not so bad. 

Children going to bed at night hungry while rich assholes are spending millions of dollars on dancing horses, that's really obscene and perverse.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> So pedophiles can't have marriages because children can't knowingly consent under the law.
> Animals can't consent under the law, as they aren't self-aware.
> Corpses can't consent because they aren't alive to consent.



Why not? Aren't you simply pointing out how we are restricting people's rights to do what they want to do? 

What you now define as 'children' includes humans who have reached age of sexual maturity, marked by natural changes such as menstrual periods, pubic hair and development of breasts, etc. So why should these humans be restricted to your pre-defined moral constraints on when you think they are capable of consent? 

Animals are aware of themselves. They are capable of giving consent. Try giving a cat a bath without it's consent. Try riding a horse without it's consent. If a girl's german shepherd doesn't consent to mounting her, it won't. Again, who the hell are YOU to decide what is morally acceptable? How is that bothering you? 

Dead people? What does it matter, they are dead? Is it harming you for someone to fuck a corpse? Again, why do you think you have the right to make that determination on behalf of someone else? Who are you to deny their love? 



> So really, that only leaves "Polygamists".  And while I have no problem with polygamy if everyone involved is a consenting adult, the reality is that we don't allow people to make a marriage contract if they already have one with someone else.



Well there are LOTS of things we don't currently do. Seems to me "there's no danger because we don't allow that" is a stupid justification for allowing something we've never allowed before. If we can change the meaning of "marriage" we can change the meaning of "consent" or "children" or any damn thing else, all bets are off.... if we want to do it, we can simply change the law.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



LOL---so atheists follow Greek Philosophy ?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Really? Child abuse comes to mind for who? You really believe that if someone doesn't give a shit about consenting adults entering into a polygamist relationship, that they must also support child abuse?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration *in the eyes of God*, Nature and Man.


Herein is where your entire argument falls apart.  The United States is not, has never been, and will never a theocracy.  As such what is, or is not "...an aberration in the eyes of God" is entirely irrelevant, as that is not, and cannot be, a measure for what should, and should not, be a point of law.

The rest of your post is your personal opinion, and I will not debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they are simply not allowed to legislate based on those opinions.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.
> ...



I would argue that atheists are actually the more moral.

Who is making the more moral choice not to steal, the guy who is not being watched by the police or the guy that is.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration *in the eyes of God*, Nature and Man.
> ...



Judges who decide the validity of laws issue opinions all the time-----they are as much a part of America as a law.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Shocking opinion since you are one  LOL


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


And, frankly, most of those morals and ethics are the product of generations of adaptation and transmission by religious organizational mechanisms of one kind or another.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> One angle would be to find homosexuality to be harmful to the Republic and its citizens in some manner or another.


You're quite right.  The moralists *could* try to do this to invalidate same-sex marriage.  Unfortunately, they have yet to find a legitimate argument to make that case without falling into a logically fallacious "Slippery Slope' argument that convinces no one.  But, hey!  Good luck with that.  You guys keep trying to do that.  Lemme know how that works out for ya...


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Opposing homosexuality does not preclude those opponents from being on the same page as you are, with respect to hunger, greed, etc.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I asked the question.  Do you care to answer it?


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Atheist just cherry pick the ones that are convenient for the moment and pretend religion has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 12, 2014)

We can stop calling it marriage now.   Marriage has been devalued to the point where it is meaningless.   Think up a new term.  Maybe a Covenant instead.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> The only people being "denied" something, are sexual deviants who want to change marriage so as to include their sexual deviancy. Under any current law of any state, a homosexual can obtain the same exact marriage license as a straight person, in fact, they will not even ask if you are a homosexual. So there is nothing being denied to homosexuals except the right to change and modify marriage to include their sexual behavior.
> 
> I am a Constitutionalist, I believe in the Constitution. When it says that we cannot afford certain rights to one group of people without affording those rights to all other groups, I believe that is fundamental "equal protection" and our obligation under the Constitution. Therefore, if marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, it also has to include pedophiles, people who fuck animals, polygamists, necrophiliacs, or any other sexual proclivity who wishes to have their deviancy legitimized under the law. There is no slippery slope, the slope has been removed entirely. It's now just a bottomless drop into the immoral abyss... no slope... no slipping.


Denying that you are employing a slipper slope argument, while employing a slippery slope argument just makes you sound stupid.  Since I have no intention of debating a logical fallacy because it, by definition, is devoid of logic, and fails, I'll just leave my comments on this little bit of stupidity there.



Boss said:


> Now, instead of opening up this can of immoral worms that no one is going to want to deal with in the future, instead of insisting that government protect and sanction a sexual lifestyle which it will constitutionally have to protect for all sexual lifestyles, why not simply change how government deals with domestic relationships? Adopt a reform to comprehensive civil unions, where the government only recognizes a universal 2-party contract and not "marriage" at all


Most of us would be okay with that.  Good luck getting Christians to give up their "marriage".



Boss said:


> Nope...not good enough for those who push for gay marriage. You see, this isn't about gay couples getting rights being denied at all. It is a radical leftist attempt to destroy the moral underpinnings of society. To take a big steamy dump on the Church and religious sanctity of marriage. THAT is what they are after, THAT is what they want.


The only reason that isn't "good enough" for us who push for gay marriage is because what you are proposing is not being proposed.  What's being proposed is that "The Gays" can have civil unions, while all of the "normal, proper" people get to keep their marriage.  You have to know *that* isn't going to be acceptable.


----------



## MaryL (Oct 12, 2014)

Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals, and they always have. Any of you comprehend that simple fact? No, that isn't enough. The supreme court doesn't understand that. Marriage is about  sheltering children, not validating perverted weirdo's. This country is lost. We might as well dig a hole and jump in and pull the dirt down over our heads if the supreme court feeds into this  inanity.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So pedophiles can't have marriages because children can't knowingly consent under the law.
> ...



I noticed you specifically left out where I discussed that Marriage is a CONTRACT, and what was needed to make a contract.  




Boss said:


> What you now define as 'children' includes humans who have reached age of sexual maturity, marked by natural changes such as menstrual periods, pubic hair and development of breasts, etc. So why should these humans be restricted to your pre-defined moral constraints on when you think they are capable of consent?



Well, if you want to go there- many states- mostly the red ones, allow children as young as 14 to marry, and this all happened without the mean old Gays doing anything.  




Boss said:


> Animals are aware of themselves. They are capable of giving consent. Try giving a cat a bath without it's consent. Try riding a horse without it's consent. If a girl's german shepherd doesn't consent to mounting her, it won't. Again, who the hell are YOU to decide what is morally acceptable? How is that bothering you?



An animal does not have the ability to make a contract. It is not a person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it cannot make a marriage contract. so argument fail.  




Boss said:


> Dead people? What does it matter, they are dead? Is it harming you for someone to fuck a corpse? Again, why do you think you have the right to make that determination on behalf of someone else? Who are you to deny their love?



A dead person can't "love', as they lack you know, being alive. 

Hey, here's a whacky idea. INstead of trying to tell me why gays are bad by talking about other sexuality, just tell me why gays are bad. 

Valid answers do not include 
1) God said so.
2) I think it's icky. 

Thanks. Have at it. 



Boss said:


> > So really, that only leaves "Polygamists".  And while I have no problem with polygamy if everyone involved is a consenting adult, the reality is that we don't allow people to make a marriage contract if they already have one with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there are LOTS of things we don't currently do. Seems to me "there's no danger because we don't allow that" is a stupid justification for allowing something we've never allowed before. If we can change the meaning of "marriage" we can change the meaning of "consent" or "children" or any damn thing else, all bets are off.... if we want to do it, we can simply change the law.



And that's the point.  We can change the law.   The problem is, once you remove the religious arguments against homosexuality, you really don't have an argument. 

You could make an argument against polygamy, in that it isn't an "equal" partnership.  Really, people are too jealous for that to work unless someone has beaten everyone else down.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > Its none of my business what two consenting adults do.  If you believe in less gov't then gay marriage is a non issue for you.  As a married with children heterosexual man how does gay marriage threaten me?  Answer?  It doesn't.   Take a look at the greed on wall St and what happens there... talk about immoral
> ...


How?  Fuck the rhetoric.  Explain how *someone else's marriage* affects *you personally* in any way.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



No, we are demanding (and receiving) equal protection under the law for our civil marriages. 

And it is for those that we are *emotionally *attracted to, sex is just the fringe benefit. 

You can be gay and a virgin, you do realize.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals, and they always have. Any of you comprehend that simple fact? No, that isn't enough. The supreme court doesn't understand that. Marriage is about  sheltering children, not validating perverted weirdo's. This country is lost. We might as well dig a hole and jump in and pull the dirt down over our heads if the supreme court feeds into this  inanity.



If your twisted world view were indeed fact, no one that was unable to unwilling to procreate would be allowed to civilly marry. Where is that the case? Oh, no where you say?

As for the latter hyperbole in your post...that sound like a good thing for YOU to do...the rest of the country will go on living and gays will go on marrying. It will effect no one but those getting married.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.


It's irrelevant what atheists use for their moral base.  The point is that just because their morals are *different* than yours doesn't make them "immoral".  To suggest such is an indication of self-righteous religious prejudice.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I guess I have a different idea of what I consider "Perverse" and "unclean".
> 
> Two people who love each other being able to get married, meh, not so bad.
> 
> Children going to bed at night hungry while rich assholes are spending millions of dollars on dancing horses, that's really obscene and perverse.



Yes, you are what is called a "useful idiot" carrying the water for Marxist Socialism. Tearing down religious moral constructs is important to bringing about Marxist reform in a free society. Also important is attacking and destroying free market capitalism. You depend on purely emotive bleats to work the masses into a frenzy so they will support your Marxist reformists. 

As a society, we literally spend billions upon billions each year through the government to ensure not a single child in America goes to bed hungry. This is in addition to the billions upon billions spent and distributed by charity organizations and churches committed to the same purpose. 

Now, I am not a "rich asshole" but here is what I will do... I will donate $10k to the charity of your choice if you can provide me with one verifiable example of a child who has died from preventable starvation in America within the past 50 years.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



And yet, oddly, most religions follow the same basic rules which means they aren't religious rules, they are *societal *rules. Religion is just the wrapping around them to control the masses.

Good and bad does not have to come from religion. You don't do bad things because you think god is watching and he'll make you suffer. How does that make you more moral than the atheist who doesn't do bad things because they are bad things?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > One angle would be to find homosexuality to be harmful to the Republic and its citizens in some manner or another.
> ...


You're correct.

With the key word being 'yet'.

That's what '_continuing to try until you succeed_' is all about.

We may know more within four to eight years of the beginning of the next conservative Presidency.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

lol  the paganist have been around as long as society has----don't try to claim society was the forerunner of religion.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


That may be *"covered*" by religion, but the religious zealots certainly don't *practice it* as a part of their moral code.  You see, part of "treating people decently" is respecting them enough to allow them to make their own decision, and live their own lives.  Trying to pass laws that deny people the right to do this, such as denying same-sex marriage, is completely antithetical to that principle.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



If there were a question, I'd answer it. Your comment was too vague and your meaning unclear. I'm not sure if you are saying that atheists don't care about child abuse or that polygamy has been known to be fraught with it. Only one of those statements even has a grain of truth.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.
> ...



not uncommon response when atheist claim to be more moral than religious people.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



so what's the score on atheist behavior ? How decently do they treat people ?  I know Stalin and Mao weren't very nice.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> lol  the paganist have been around as long as society has----don't try to claim society was the forerunner of religion.



Of course it was. There could be no religion without the society to support it. Adding religion was a way of explaining the unexplainable and for controlling the populace. 

Who is making the more moral choice, the Christian that does it because god is watching or the atheist that does it because it is the right thing to do?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> [
> Opposing homosexuality does not preclude those opponents from being on the same page as you are, with respect to hunger, greed, etc.



No, but it does show their priorities. 

George W. Bush got re-elected in 2004 (after stealing the election in 2000) because anti-gay measures in Ohio and other states brought out the religious voters.  

so Bush got you to vote fore more greed and more hunger because people like you couldn't stand the gay. (And no one mention Mary Cheney's a Lesbian!!!) 

Except a funny thing happened. Remember how Bush promised us he was going to introduce a 'Sanctity of Marriage Amendment" in Congress?  What ever happened to that?  

Nope.  He used his political capital in a hair-brained scheme to try to get Wall Street put in charge of Social Security.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Does this definition fit your theology?
athe·ist
*noun* \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist
*:*  one who believes that there is no deity


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> [
> 
> so what's the score on atheist behavior ? How decently do they treat people ?  I know Stalin and Mao weren't very nice.



Compared to who? all the religious nuts who've slaughtered millions?  

Maybe you need to put down the Bircher propaganda...


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > lol  the paganist have been around as long as society has----don't try to claim society was the forerunner of religion.
> ...



Is a MORE moral choice different than a LESS moral choice?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Hmmmmm... not sure you're right about the 'priorities' thing... I'm guessing that most folks who oppose homosexuality would probably assign the fighting of hunger and greed to be a higher priority than homosexuality... but I could be wrong.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



What's the score on Christian behavior? How decently do they treat people? The inquisition, Salem witch trails, Crusades...those were some not very nice Christians.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



atheist----I made no mention of their politics---


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



right---so lets go with people aren't very nice. Don't try to bother proving atheists are somehow better


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Can't answer the question? The Christian doesn't do bad things because god is watching...the atheist has no such restrictions. They aren't worried about the ever after and what god might think about their actions. Both the atheist and the Christian are choosing not to do bad things. Only the Christian isn't doing it because someone is watching.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



And yet you made attempt after attempt to "prove" they are somehow less...until it bit you in the ass.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I will repeat the question for you.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? 

I will try and ask it in with smaller words if it is still too vague for you.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > But it DOES affect you, it affects us all.
> ...



Marriage doesn't affect me. Changing marriage to include homosexual behavior affects me because it affects the morality of society in general. I don't wish to live in an immoral or amoral society. I've studied history and realize this has been the biggest cause of civilizations collapsing and I don't want that to happen with mine. 

So... Marriage is fine, I have no problem with that... I am all for homosexual males finding a nice girl and settling down or homosexual females finding Mr. Right and doing the same. What I am opposed to is altering the term "marriage" so that it will include sexual proclivities of any kind.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Okay, so it is just a condemnation on an atheist who doesn't give a shit what *consenting adults* do.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Christianity certainly deserves some of the brickbats that it earned during those long centuries while the Church was heavily involved in Secular Governance as well as Spiritual matters, but, even during those troubling times, it served effectively as the transmitter of ethics and morals and behavioral standards for a very great many generations.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Civil Marriage has nothing to do with sex or proclivities. Civil Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults that allows them to make decisions for each other. 

Was voting "altered" when blacks and women could do it? 

Over 60% of the country will live in a marriage equality state shortly. Have you been scouting property in Iran? I hear they still jail and kill the queers there.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So pedophiles can't have marriages because children can't knowingly consent under the law.
> ...


Children, animals, and the dead are not considered people.  Although, I suppose in the case of necrophilia, so long as the body is yours, I would have no problem with you doing whatever you wanted with it.  After all, you're not actually hurting anyone.

But, you see, the real problem here is that you are trying to introduce non-issues.  There is a veritable army of homosexuals who are crying out for the right to marry their loved ones.  Is there an army of polygamists out there crying out for the right to have multiple wives?  Is there an army of animal lovers out there begging for the right to marry their dogs?  Is there an army of necrophiliacs out there screaming for the right to fuck dead people?

You see, you moralists keep bringing up this slippery slope argument as if the question of same-sex marriage was just some "progressive agenda" that sprang up for no reason other than, "We wanted to fuck with the Church".  Except that's not how it went.  This movement grew because thousands of *actual homosexuals* were feeling slighted, and wanted an injustice righted.  No one is mentioning any of those other issues, except you moralists.  is it any wonder that the rest of us have started to wonder if you, perhaps, have some secret desires that you would like to have legitimized, since you're the only ones bringing it up?


Boss said:


> What you now define as 'children' includes humans who have reached age of sexual maturity, marked by natural changes such as menstrual periods, pubic hair and development of breasts, etc. So why should these humans be restricted to your pre-defined moral constraints on when you think they are capable of consent?


Yes, it does.  However, what you are describing does not fall under pedophilia.  Pedophilia requires, *by definition*, that the "children" in question be pre-pubescent.  That means they haven't even *begun* to sexually mature, yet, let alone reached sexual maturity.  As to the question of age of consent.  I have argued for some time that our "age of consent" laws are purely arbitrary.  As you pointed out, by 14, or 15 these adolescents have reached sexual maturity.  What we need is a Master-Johnson type comprehensive study of adolescents to determine, quantifiably, when they are capable of making emotional, and cognitive maturity.  We have neurological evidence that the frontal cortex doesn't reach *full* maturity until age 26, however, we have no actual data on when adolescents develop the ability to make reasoned decisions.  Once we have that information, if the data says 14, then 14 should be the age of consent.  If it says 16, then it should be 16.  If it says 19, then it should be raised to 19.  The point is that "age of consent" should be demonstrably based on verifiable evidence, not some arbitrary number that makes "mommy, and daddy" feel "comfortable".



Boss said:


> Animals are aware of themselves. They are capable of giving consent. Try giving a cat a bath without it's consent. Try riding a horse without it's consent. If a girl's german shepherd doesn't consent to mounting her, it won't. Again, who the hell are YOU to decide what is morally acceptable? How is that bothering you?


You may have a point.  However, I think the difficulty comes in determining how one determines consent - legally i mean.  Without the ability of verbal cues ("yes" or "No"), how do we determine that an animal has "given consent".  Just because you "say so"?  That doesn't work with humans, why should it work with animals?



Boss said:


> > So really, that only leaves "Polygamists".  And while I have no problem with polygamy if everyone involved is a consenting adult, the reality is that we don't allow people to make a marriage contract if they already have one with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there are LOTS of things we don't currently do. Seems to me "there's no danger because we don't allow that" is a stupid justification for allowing something we've never allowed before. If we can change the meaning of "marriage" we can change the meaning of "consent" or "children" or any damn thing else, all bets are off.... if we want to do it, we can simply change the law.


Well, again, this is really a matter of those of us who support same-sex marriage not being the list bit interested in fighting for the rights of people who don't exist.  Since there doesn't seem to be any polygamists coming forward demanding the right to marry multiple spouses, it's really kind of a non-issue, now isn't it?


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I like how you have decided that once homosexuals are allowed to "marry" that marriage is finally equal -----aren't you leaving some people out ?


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 12, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Interesting article in the Federalist:
> 
> Stop Calling It Marriage Equality
> 
> ...





> *I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”*


Let me answer in both logical and mathematical terms.

IMO...state recognized marriage should be a right afforded to 2 adult humans as long as both of them are over 18.

The exclusions should include marriages that involve non humans, and any marriage that puts 1 or more of the participants in an inferior state to the other(s).

Plural marriage should be prohibited because it puts (typically) the matriarchal participants in an inferior state to the patriarchal participant by way of divided affection, financial interest, etc....no matter how wealthy the patriarch is, the matriarchs get less of it than the patriarch gets.

Most heterosexual marriages have someone who hold the purse strings, and things are rarely perfect in term of mathematical equality, but the possibility exits, and cannot with plural marriage.

As for horses, kids, and whatever else, those participants are in an inferior state because they cannot negotiate the marriage from a state anything more than inferiority. They are inferior in terms of maturity, mental competence, and in the case of non humans, basic comprehension.

It's about marriage equality for 2 humans, not marriage equality for 2 gays.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Oct 12, 2014)

I have an idea. Why don't we make gays wear pink triangles on their clothes?

Never mind. Someone else thought of that before....


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


You get that no two atheists are alike, right?  So, your statement is ludicrous prima facia.  *Some* atheists follow the Greeks.  *Some* follow oriental philosophy. *Some* follow Middle Eastern philosophies.  *Some *take from everywhere.  You can't just say, "Atheist believe _____" (fill in the blank).  This is part of why many atheists have chosen to take the path they have - because they didn't* want* to have to cram their personal philophies into the little pigeon holes that most religions require.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Interpreting the law is far different from *legislating*.  That's what you guys seem to have a hard time understanding.  What you keep calling "legislating from the bench" is nothing more than  the judicial system doing what the Constitution set it up to do - interpret the law, and determine its constitutionality.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No, I'm not leaving anyone out. No other protected minority groups are being denied civil marriage for their legal partnerships that I'm aware of.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting article in the Federalist:
> ...



Demanding that people be of some arbitrarily chosen age is so archaic and unfair. How about some compassion for American teens who are in love ?


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Interpreting the law sometimes changes the law with amounts to the same thing as passing new legislation.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


It's very simple...there are only 3 reasons people oppose gay marriage. Because God says so, or picturing gays having sex makes them feel icky, or they're just opposing it because it's what all the righties are doing.

Constitutional arguments, damage to traditional marriage, are all symptoms of denial for the above reasons


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


That's a good point, and the only rational gray area within my argument.

Some states allow marriage at 16 and older with parental permission, or there are emancipated minors... and I have no answer for the legal practicalities on that situation. I think 16 year olds who get married are making a huge mistake, and it should be discouraged whether or not the 16 year olds are gay or straight


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


I would debate that, however, this is neither the time, nor place.  The point of my statement was not about the *source* of the moral systems of atheists; it was about the fact that just because the particular moral positions of atheists are different from yours does not equate atheists *lacking* morals.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I already know from previous a post what one atheist doesn't give a shit about and still supports.  My question is what else besides same sex marriage, polygamy and incest do you not give a shit about and still support?


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I noticed you specifically left out where I discussed that Marriage is a CONTRACT, and what was needed to make a contract.



Again... "contract" is just a word. It can be redefined to mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate feelings, wants and desires. No need in being so rigid and conservative in your views, right? How does it hurt you in any way for a contract to mean something different for different people/animals/corpses?  



> Well, if you want to go there- many states- mostly the red ones, allow children as young as 14 to marry, and this all happened without the mean old Gays doing anything.



Why stop at 14? Let's make it 12 or 11! Or maybe not have an arbitrary age limit at all? Humans don't all reach sexual maturity at the same time, why should they be restrained by some arbitrary limitation? Seems like you just want to be a rigid moral fuddy-duddy who wants to impose his morality on the rest of us against our will and deny us the rights we should have to love who we please. 



> An animal does not have the ability to make a contract. It is not a person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it cannot make a marriage contract. so argument fail.



Again, once was the time, males could not marry males and females couldn't marry females in the eyes of the law. Therefore, there was no such thing as Gay Marriage and it was an "argument fail" as well. 

We simply need to redefine "persons" to include animals and how we determine "consent" and what that means under the law... same as we're doing with "marriage." 



> A dead person can't "love', as they lack you know, being alive.



But that's not their fault, they can't help that they are dead. Why should you deny their rights over something that isn't their fault? Who are you to deny the person who loves them the right to express their love? It's not hurting you in any way, it's certainly not hurting the dead person... what is the hangup? 



> Hey, here's a whacky idea. INstead of trying to tell me why gays are bad by talking about other sexuality, just tell me why gays are bad.



Never said gays are bad. I personally like gays. Some of my best friends are gay. They are funny, creative, interesting people, for the most part. I have not a thing against gay people. 

Again, I support comprehensive civil unions reform, whereby the government essentially gets out of the "marriage" business entirely and adopts civil union domestic partnerships instead. This solves all the problems for all parties, it gives gay people the avenue they need to get benefits, etc., it protects religious sanctity of traditional marriage, it releases government from the awkward position of sanctioning sexual behaviors, it gets government out of our personal business, it resolves this issue forever. 



> And that's the point.  We can change the law.   The problem is, once you remove the religious arguments against homosexuality, you really don't have an argument.



Well, once you remove religiously-based morality, you essentially have no argument for any legitimate law. 

And let's be clear, no one is advocating a law against homosexuality. Perhaps we should be, but as far as I know, no one is. You are free to be as homosexual as you please in America. 



> You could make an argument against polygamy, in that it isn't an "equal" partnership.  Really, people are too jealous for that to work unless someone has beaten everyone else down.



Who the hell are YOU to decide this? Why do you keep justifying these archaic moral constraints on society? Oh... that's right, you don't really have a problem with polygamy. And I suspect, you really wouldn't have a problem with pedophilia or beastality either, if it ever becomes "in vogue" with the liberal movement. You see, all it will take is Oprah or Ellen displaying some sob story about it, then you'll get behind whatever... you have no moral compass.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Wrong----- another argument is that changing the definition of marriage changes culture.  How about if the law were changed to define an American citizen as anyone who has ever been here ? Would that work for ya ? Would you immediately treat every Joe Blow who has visited America as a brother or sister


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


I think you had better hope,. *strongly*, that you guys win this next election.  Because, if not, I suspect this will already be a dead issue.  I mean in just 4 years we've gone from no states to 30 states.  Just how long do you think it will take to get the last 20 to fall?  After that, same-sex marriage is a thing.  Debate over.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed you specifically left out where I discussed that Marriage is a CONTRACT, and what was needed to make a contract.
> ...


I don't believe you have gay friends. Nobody I have ever known who has gay friends wants to dictate what they can, and can't do within their relationship.

I know plenty of righties and bible thumpers who have gay acquaintances, or have had random conversations/encounters with gays in which they forced themselves to be civil and even cordial...and I don't know what friendship is like where you come from...but I support my friends and family if what they're doing is legal, putting aside any religious or moral feelings of my own.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



The faulty and irrational logic that now validates homosexuals calling themselves "married" still exists and will be used on the next identified "victims".


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss, i'm not plodding through another one of your cases of verbal diarheaa.. So I'll just hit the good points. 



Boss said:


> Never said gays are bad. I personally like gays. Some of my best friends are gay. They are funny, creative, interesting people, for the most part. I have not a thing against gay people.
> 
> Again, I support comprehensive civil unions reform, whereby the government essentially gets out of the "marriage" business entirely and adopts civil union domestic partnerships instead. This solves all the problems for all parties, it gives gay people the avenue they need to get benefits, etc., it protects religious sanctity of traditional marriage, it releases government from the awkward position of sanctioning sexual behaviors, it gets government out of our personal business, it resolves this issue forever.



In short, you want to burn down the clubhouse rather than let "those people" in. 

Hows this.  Gays can get married, we call it marriage, and everyone has to recognize it no matter what their magic sky fairy thinks.  Works for me. 



Boss said:


> Who the hell are YOU to decide this? Why do you keep justifying these archaic moral constraints on society? Oh... that's right, you don't really have a problem with polygamy. And I suspect, you really wouldn't have a problem with pedophilia or beastality either, if it ever becomes "in vogue" with the liberal movement. You see, all it will take is Oprah or Ellen displaying some sob story about it, then you'll get behind whatever... you have no moral compass.



I'd have a problem with pedophilia because it does psychological damage to children. 

Polygamy won't work because so woman would willingly share a man with another woman, and no man would willingly share a woman with another man.  The number of domestic disturbances the police answer every day should be evidence of that. 

But if the polygamists can put together a case and argue it before a court, I'm good with that.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *Never said gays are bad. I personally like gays. Some of my best friends are gay. They are funny, creative, interesting people, for the most part. I have not a thing against gay people.*
> ...



Actually, my personal viewpoint regarding comprehensive civil unions reform, comes from a gay couple who I've been friends with for more than 30 years. I adopted their viewpoint after a series of discussions with them about "gay marriage" which they are opposed to. 

Now, what's really funny about that is... they had a gay wedding in 1986, in rural Alabama, and I attended it. They had bridesmaids and groomsmen, rice and cake, a wedding album, a honeymoon... the whole shebang. 

When all this "gay marriage" stuff began, I really expected they would be foremost advocates. You'd think they would be leading the charge, but not the case. According to them, it's all a ruse and is only helping to prevent them from realizing the benefits they seek as domestic partners. You see, they are more interested in seeing the issue resolved, obtaining benefits of domestic partnership, than waging some moralistic cultural war with the religious right for another 30 years. 

A point they made to me, which completely changed my mind was this.,.. IF government is allowed to define what marriage can be today, it can redefine it tomorrow. In other words, if government says "gay marriage" is a "thing" today, then tomorrow, it can just as easily say "gay marriage" is NOT a "thing." You've given them that power, you've conceded they have that power, forevermore. Rather than doing that, they favor taking this out of the hands of government to decide and leaving it to the people.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed you specifically left out where I discussed that Marriage is a CONTRACT, and what was needed to make a contract.
> ...


Except you can't.  That's the point.  You already tried that when you attempted to redefine "marriage", adding the words "one woman, and one man" to the definition, and you have been shot down by the Federal Courts every time it gets there.  Words. Have. Meanings. You don't get to change those meanings just because you don't happen to like the consequences of those meanings.



Boss said:


> > Well, if you want to go there- many states- mostly the red ones, allow children as young as 14 to marry, and this all happened without the mean old Gays doing anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Why stop at 14? Let's make it 12 or 11! Or maybe not have an arbitrary age limit at all? Humans don't all reach sexual maturity at the same time, why should they be restrained by some arbitrary limitation? Seems like you just want to be a rigid moral fuddy-duddy who wants to impose his morality on the rest of us against our will and deny us the rights we should have to love who we please.


I'll let this one go, as I have already responded to this, and see no reason to repeat myself.



Boss said:


> > An animal does not have the ability to make a contract. It is not a person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it cannot make a marriage contract. so argument fail.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, this was dealt with above, when it was pointed out that you moralists do not get to arbitrarily change the meanings of words so that they fit your emotional arguments.



Boss said:


> > A dead person can't "love', as they lack you know, being alive.
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not their fault, they can't help that they are dead. Why should you deny their rights over something that isn't their fault? Who are you to deny the person who loves them the right to express their love? It's not hurting you in any way, it's certainly not hurting the dead person... what is the hangup?


Well...since a dead body is a thing, not a person, I suppose this would actually fall under property rights.  So, as such, I would actually be okay with necrophiliacs fucking their dead bodies, so long as they can prove ownership.  *I* think it's a little gross.  But, Hey!  Who am I to judge?



Boss said:


> > Hey, here's a whacky idea. INstead of trying to tell me why gays are bad by talking about other sexuality, just tell me why gays are bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Never said gays are bad. I personally like gays. Some of my best friends are gay. They are funny, creative, interesting people, for the most part. I have not a thing against gay people


"Hey!  I'm not racist!  Some of my friends are black!!!"  No.  I'm not suggesting you said that.  I'm just demonstrating the humor of the irony in your comment.  Please...do carry on with your "gay appreciation" defense.



Boss said:


> Again, I support comprehensive civil unions reform, whereby the government essentially gets out of the "marriage" business entirely and adopts civil union domestic partnerships instead. This solves all the problems for all parties, it gives gay people the avenue they need to get benefits, etc., it protects religious sanctity of traditional marriage, it releases government from the awkward position of sanctioning sexual behaviors, it gets government out of our personal business, it resolves this issue forever.


I, for one, would have no problem with that, so long as the "marriage certificate" were relegated to the realm of the "Baptism Certificate", and the "Confirmation Certificate" - that is to say that it holds no weight in civil law, and is valid for no one outside of the church from whom it was granted.  Otherwise, all you're really supporting is another "Separate but Equal" argument.



Boss said:


> > And that's the point.  We can change the law.   The problem is, once you remove the religious arguments against homosexuality, you really don't have an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, once you remove religiously-based morality, you essentially have no argument for any legitimate law


Absolutely not.  The law is about self-preservation, not morality. At least it's not *supposed* to be.  The purpose of the law is very simple - to protect *me* from *you*.  We are basically violent, remorseless, vindictive creatures.  We have no problem with killing, maiming, raping, pillaging, and plundering.  We have proven this over, and over throughout the course of human history.  Here's the thing.  I happen to like breathing.  It's an addiction that I have come to enjoy.  I don't particularly want you to kill me.  Therefore, as a matter of self-preservation we agree that no one gets to kill anyone.  This isn't about any silly morality.  It's self-preservation.  If no one gets to kill anyone, i no longer have to worry about you killing me, without suffering consequences for your choice.  And, the same can be said for every single law; they are about protecting *me* from *you*.  This is true, anyway, right up until we get to the "morality laws".  Somewhere along the line you moralists decided it was your "duty" to protect me from *myself*.  Guess what?  You.  Were.  Wrong.  Not only is it not your duty, but it isn't your *right*.  Every time you pass one of these stupid morality laws, you have the effect of *denying people their individual right of free choice*.  That was never meant to be the purpose of law.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I have no doubt that you can find a plethora of quotes from people justifying "Law" as having some "divine source", but that's all that clap-trap is - justification.  In addition to being violent, remorseless, and vindictive, we are also extremely superstitious.  So, whenever those with authority wanted to add legitimacy to their laws, all they had to do was ascribe the source of those laws as some divine power, and suddenly everyone went, "Ooooo...well if (fill in the god of your choice, here) demanded it, then we *must* obey!!!"  You'll notice that, in all of my descriptions of man, I never included terribly bright.  Clever?  Often.  Bright?  Not so much.



Boss said:


> And let's be clear, no one is advocating a law against homosexuality. Perhaps we should be, but as far as I know, no one is. You are free to be as homosexual as you please in America.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually agree with you on this final point.  Polygamy is no more my business than same-sex marriage.  I just don't see the point of going to the effort to rework all of the laws that polygamy recognition would require without *actual people asking to engage in polygamy*.  Since you're only bringing it up as a foil to same-sex marriage, you don't count.

Lemme know when you have actually found some polygamists in the US that want to lobby for the right to their lifestyle, and we'll talk.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


Only if that law had already been altered in ways that are unconstitutional.  Returning a law to its original is not "changing" the law; it is fixing the unconstitutional changes that were made to it.

Such as in this case.  It was the addition of "one man, one woman" that unconstitutionally changed the laws.  All the court rulings are doing is returning the laws to their original form.

That's not "legislating" that's interpreting.  That's what the court is *supposed* to do.  You just don't like the interpretation.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss, i'm not plodding through another one of your cases of verbal diarheaa.. So I'll just hit the good points.



Hey, I don't give a damn if you want to reply to my points or not. In fact, I've pwned that ass so well, I kinda don't blame you for running away. 



> In short, you want to burn down the clubhouse rather than let "those people" in.
> 
> Hows this.  Gays can get married, we call it marriage, and everyone has to recognize it no matter what their magic sky fairy thinks.  Works for me.



Well, it doesn't work for me, nor does it work for a majority of Americans. You can grow the fuck up and realize you live in a collective society and not your own personal Kingdom, or you will face the wrath of pissed off people who will pass a constitutional amendment to ensure you never ever get to define marriage again. 

I don't want to burn any clubhouse. I want to remove government from being in a position of determining what we call marriage. I don't want YOU defining it, I don't want government defining it, and I don't want a court defining it. I want THE PEOPLE to define it as they please, and government to stay the hell out of it. 



> I'd have a problem with pedophilia because it does psychological damage to children.



So does gay marriage. 

Look.. the Greeks built a great civilization filled with enlightenment and some of the greatest philosophy ever known to man, and they were having sex with children left and right... thought of it as proper training for any child coming of age. 



> Polygamy won't work because so woman would willingly share a man with another woman, and no man would willingly share a woman with another man.  The number of domestic disturbances the police answer every day should be evidence of that.
> 
> But if the polygamists can put together a case and argue it before a court, I'm good with that.



Once again, you seem to be the moral judge and determiner for others here. As if someone has put YOU in charge of deciding what is good for the rest of us. You can do whatever the hell you please and no one can say a damn word about that, but you get to also decide what others can and can't do. Sounds totally hypocritical to me. 

Yeah, you're good with polygamy, so we can already see what's next up on the docket for liberals, after we get gay marriage in the books, huh? Then it will be on to pedophilia, beastality, necrophilia... what-the-fuck-ever... if it feels good, do it!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Well...prostitution, drugs, suicide (not to be confused with euthanasia - two very different things).  Here's a hint.  If the law was designed to protect me from myself, the law is wrong.  I really don't like morality laws that tell other people what they get to do with their own bodies, in their own lives.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



and it's done according to the opinion of a judge appointed by a politician.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Except you can't.  That's the point.  You already tried that when you attempted to redefine "marriage", adding the words "one woman, and one man" to the definition, and you have been shot down by the Federal Courts every time it gets there.  Words. Have. Meanings. You don't get to change those meanings just because you don't happen to like the consequences of those meanings.



Sorry, but 1) courts have not decided any such thing. 2) courts are not always right. Words DO have meanings, and marriage is the union of a man and woman. You want to change that to include same-sex couples. 3) A constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage will trump anything any court has to say on this. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Why stop at 14? Let's make it 12 or 11! Or maybe not have an arbitrary age limit at all? Humans don't all reach sexual maturity at the same time, why should they be restrained by some arbitrary limitation? Seems like you just want to be a rigid moral fuddy-duddy who wants to impose his morality on the rest of us against our will and deny us the rights we should have to love who we please.
> ...



Sorry, not seeing any response from you on this. But hey... don't blame you for letting it go and running far far away, it's a brilliant point that is hard to defeat. 



Boss said:


> > An animal does not have the ability to make a contract. It is not a person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it cannot make a marriage contract. so argument fail.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well SURE we do! That's what we're debating here, right? If you can change marriage to fit your emotional arguments, then others can change meanings to fit theirs. Sounds like what you want is to be able to have what you want but deny others what they want. Are you just a flaming fucking hypocrite? 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > A dead person can't "love', as they lack you know, being alive.
> ...



Ahh... GREAT... so now we have another peek into the future liberal agenda! Yes... let's get "gay marriage" settled as law of the land first, then we can have the national debate about fucking the dead! All of those opposed to such a thing can be called names and ridiculed by the liberal left, and we can push morality a little further down the crap hole. Wonderful!


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Really, so back in 1824 homosexuals were being married? Other societies 100's of years ago, or even in the last Century called homosexual couples, married. 

Please provide some insight. I love to be educated so prove your premise.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



When you posted this: "First, like most religious zealots, you *presume* that just because a person does not happen to believe your little fairy tail about the Magic Man in the Sky who is going to make everything okay by "sending" his kid to be brutalized and murdered at the hands of violent, stupid men, that this means that person has *no morals*."  You insulted 88% of the people in the world that believe in God and 33% of the world population that is Christian. You didn't need to tell me what your moral compass was.  I had already guessed.

My question was to Seawytch and I will wait for his/her answer.


----------



## Bush92 (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Fuck you


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


and as I stated, to win, you must not allude to what you are speaking of, you must not use any word that associates Homosexuality with what you advocate.

You must kill Free Speech, your reply confirms this.


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yes, so funny, I am sure you really laughed. 

So you are all in for Homosexual "Marriage", to include all that encompasses, the "civil-right" to buy Heterosexual Children, yes or no?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


With your failed 'argument' devoid of facts or evidence, you now resort to inane demagoguery.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals


No they don't.  And repeating that over and over again, doesn't magically make it true.


MaryL said:


> and they always have. Any of you comprehend that simple fact?


No they haven't, and repeating *that* over, and over again, doesn't magically make that true, either.



MaryL said:


> Marriage is about  sheltering children


No its not, and it has never been.  In fact, historically marriage was about securing property, and alliances.  Then, when women stopped being thought of as chattel, it became about the personal choice of spending one's life with the person one loves.  However, it has *never* been about "sheltering children".  I have no idea where you got that insanely stupid idea from.  It certainly wasn't history.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said: ↑

“and it's done according to the opinion of a judge appointed by a politician.”


Incorrect.

Obviously you've not bothered to read any of the _Marriage Cases_ rulings.

If you had you'd understand that the rulings are predicated on settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence dating back to the 19th Century (see, e.g., _Mugler_ v. _Kansas _(1887)). Consequently the notion that Federal judges are ruling in a partisan and capricious manner is false, as the decisions are supported by both Supreme Court rulings as well as objective, documented evidence presented at trial.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


I never claimed I was more moral than anyone.  Such a claim is ludicrous prima facia.  Morality is not quantitative.  People who claim to be morally superior to others, typically are self-righteous, pontificating hypocrites who feel the need to justify their behavior.  You'll notice I never defended Seawytch   , when she made that claim.  I generally agree with most of the things she says.  However, I have no intention of getting into a pissing match over whose morals are "better", as that serves no purpose, and the question of morals is always, and ought to be, a personal matter.

I only claimed that to say that atheists have *no* morals (the definition of immoral), simply because their morals *differ* is unfair, and inaccurate.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

MaryL said: ↑

“Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals”


Including the right to equal protection of the law, which the states seek to violate by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Which has to do with what, exactly?  I already know what an atheist is.  It was your characterization of atheists as "immoral" which made it an ad hominem.  Which I already explained in my post.

Like I said, when you would like to return to logical debate you lemme know.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


how about you try asking it without the ad hominem of inaccurately describing atheists as "immoral".

What other right do hypocritical Christians  think people should not have access to?

See what I did there?  See how, by adding the word "hypocritical", it turns the question into an attack?

Carry on...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And what gives you the authority to *declare* what is moral, and immoral?  I wasn't aware that we had a morality committee, or that you have been appointed as its head.

When did this happen?


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, so funny, I am sure you really laughed.
> ...



Call the truth what you may, but CCJones was quick to prove my point, those who, "WANT", Homosexual-couples to be called the same name as, "Heterosexual" couples, can only Win by censoring language. 

CCJones must be vague, CCJones must not use any term that refers to the fact that we are specifically speaking about Homosexuals.

CCJones must also deflect the speech away from any detail of what exactly these, "civil rights" will be.

CCJones is in favor of Homosexuals buying Heterosexual Children.

I know it is a hard fact, correct me if I am wrong, but this is now one of the Civil Rights that Homosexuals demand. Homosexuals demand the Civil Right to buy Orphaned Heterosexual Children, at the age of 13, at the age of 1, they even demand the Civil Right to manufacture a baby of their own design.

Inane you say, what is Inane is the lack of discussion of what is being called, "civil rights". 

Every thing I state is facts, facts are only, "Inane Demagoguery", to the person who is wrong.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


And?  That still doesn't make it "legislating".  I'm sorry if you don't like the system of checks and balances that was set up by the Constitution.  Maybe you should lobby to have that changed.  Good luck with that...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


What?!?!  Are you on some prescription anti-psychotics we should know about? I don't even know what "buying Heterosexual Children" means, let alone what it has to do with marriage.  Last time I looked, the buying and selling of human beings is referred to as "human trafficking" , and is illegal...pretty much everywhere in the world...


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Buying Heterosexual Children, I would of thought with your superior intelligence you could at the least, figure out I was referring to what Homosexuals have been doing even before you Homosexuals came up with the "same-sex", tactic.

Buying Heterosexual Children refers to Homosexuals purchasing surrogate mothers, impregnating them in laboratory, selectively aborting the babies if the sex is not what they paid for. It is a little under the radar. I am sure you have a politically correct term for this, go ahead and share. I understand that this is very expensive, done by private for profit Liberal/Democrat "doctors". 

Buying Heterosexual Children also refers adoption,  it took endless Lawsuits by homosexuals to break down the door to buying Heterosexual Children from Orphanages. 

Marriage Equality, somehow when it is stated politically correct, I find your position disgusting.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Except you can't.  That's the point.  You already tried that when you attempted to redefine "marriage", adding the words "one woman, and one man" to the definition, and you have been shot down by the Federal Courts every time it gets there.  Words. Have. Meanings. You don't get to change those meanings just because you don't happen to like the consequences of those meanings.
> ...


Actually 1) They have.  That is why the unconstitutional language that *you used to change the meaning of the word marriage* has been removed in 19 states (11 states had already legalized some-sex marriage). 2) I would agree.  However, once the courts have ruled, stomping your feet, and insisting you're right, and they're wrong, doesn't change the fact that the law of the land is now what it is in accordance with how the courts interpreted the Constitution, and subsequent laws. 3) No it wouldn't.  You had that, remember?   It was called DOMA.  The Supreme Court said, "Fuck you.  It contradicts already established Constitutional guarantees," and struck it down.



Boss said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Why stop at 14? Let's make it 12 or 11! Or maybe not have an arbitrary age limit at all? Humans don't all reach sexual maturity at the same time, why should they be restrained by some arbitrary limitation? Seems like you just want to be a rigid moral fuddy-duddy who wants to impose his morality on the rest of us against our will and deny us the rights we should have to love who we please.
> ...


It was actually part of post # 337, in response to your inaccurately referring to "pedophilia".  lemme repost my response for your edification:

Yes, it does. However, what you are describing does not fall under pedophilia. Pedophilia requires, *by definition*, that the "children" in question be pre-pubescent. That means they haven't even *begun* to sexually mature, yet, let alone reached sexual maturity. As to the question of age of consent. I have argued for some time that our "age of consent" laws are purely arbitrary. As you pointed out, by 14, or 15 these adolescents have reached sexual maturity. What we need is a Master-Johnson type comprehensive study of adolescents to determine, quantifiably, when they are capable of making emotional, and cognitive maturity. We have neurological evidence that the frontal cortex doesn't reach *full* maturity until age 26, however, we have no actual data on when adolescents develop the ability to make reasoned decisions. Once we have that information, if the data says 14, then 14 should be the age of consent. If it says 16, then it should be 16. If it says 19, then it should be raised to 19. The point is that "age of consent" should be demonstrably based on verifiable evidence, not some arbitrary number that makes "mommy, and daddy" feel "comfortable".​Does that clear up my position on adolescent sex, and "age of consent"?



Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The hypocrisy would be yours, as you moralists were the ones who *added words to the meaning of marriage* in order to make it fit your personal oral positions.  All we did was petition the courts to return the word to its original meaning.  I understand that you don't think arbitrarily adding words to a definition changes the meaning of a word, but then you think you have the right to dictate your morals to everyone else, so, really, who gives a fuck what you think, in the end. Reality is what it is.  When one adds words to a definition, that changes the meaning of a word.



Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Only if you see an army of necrophiliacs lining up to demand their rights.  I don't.  But, whatever...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.

The fact that no homosexual took advantage of the fact that the definition of  marriage was a contract between two *people, *during a time when homosexuals were not considered people, in no way invalidates the fact that this was, in fact, the definition of the word, and you moralists decided to try and change that definition when gay people figured out that they were people, too.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Hey!  First, the only one who posted that they "... don't give a shit about and still supports..." marital rights for anyone other than homosexuals was me.  So, why in the fuck would you direct a question about a person's views to anyone other than the person who's views you're questioning?  Second you're a hypocritical lying sack of shit.  The post you are quoting from me *was quoted from a direct response to a question you asked me*.  Finally, the guy who *starts* with personal attacks doesn't get to get pissy about an attack - not, and expect to be taken seriously, anyway.

Now, in spite of your hypocrisy, and offensive characterization of atheists, I answered your silly question to me.  Do you have an opinion on what I said, or not?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Or, there's that...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


*A little under the radar*?!?!  It is so far under the radar that *no one is talking about it*!  how about you come back when you have something other than nutcake, outer limits conspiracy theories.

Until then:


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2014)

Boss said:


> Hey, I don't give a damn if you want to reply to my points or not. In fact, I've pwned that ass so well, I kinda don't blame you for running away.



Guy, all you do in these talks is come off like a huge douchebag.  I'm not sure if that's something you want to be proud of. 



Boss said:


> Well, it doesn't work for me, nor does it work for a majority of Americans. You can grow the fuck up and realize you live in a collective society and not your own personal Kingdom, or you will face the wrath of pissed off people who will pass a constitutional amendment to ensure you never ever get to define marriage again.



Guy a majority supports gay marriage now. Trying to scare us with necrophilia isn't going to fly. 



Boss said:


> I don't want to burn any clubhouse. I want to remove government from being in a position of determining what we call marriage. I don't want YOU defining it, I don't want government defining it, and I don't want a court defining it. I want THE PEOPLE to define it as they please, and government to stay the hell out of it.



Wow, am I dealing with a LiberTARDian?  Guy, you need government to define it.  Otherwise all sorts of other rules like community property and parental rights couldn't be defined.  You guys are just mad because the Gays can get into the clubhouse now. 



Boss said:


> Look.. the Greeks built a great civilization filled with enlightenment and some of the greatest philosophy ever known to man, and they were having sex with children left and right... thought of it as proper training for any child coming of age.



They also believed that slavery was acceptable and you could read the future in chicken entrails. Now we know better. 



Boss said:


> Yeah, you're good with polygamy, so we can already see what's next up on the docket for liberals, after we get gay marriage in the books, huh? Then it will be on to pedophilia, beastality, necrophilia... what-the-fuck-ever... if it feels good, do it!



Someone should have explained to you at a young age that repeating the same flawed arguments doesn't make them any better.  

When corpses, dogs and small children can legally enter and understand contracts, then we'll have something to talk about.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 12, 2014)

Gays +1
Fundies -5

It will never stop amusing me to know that if Fundies hadn't spent so much time demonizing gay people SSM would never have been taken seriously.

Thank you, founding peoples.


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yes, I am appealing to antiquity, nothing more. But what was this post about that I commented to? Religious zealots, moralists, that attempted to revise marriage, obviously from what it was known to include, which must mean in the past, as in "Antiquity" (as you put it).

"Marriage", is not a simplistic definition determined by un-elected men in black robes, as in the courts. 

_Marriage_ _was a contract between two people. 
_
That is what the government dictates, that people must have a contract that the government can rule and regulate and control through Judges, Lawyers, and Politicians. 

Marriage is much more, than a contract, the contract part is what Government imposes or dictates. The Contract you speak of costs citizens 100's of billions of dollars in Legal fees, billions and billions of dollars the courts collect ruling and regulating through Contracts.

How is that the Liberal/Democrat Homosexual supporters demand their relationship be dictated by legal government contracts while in at the same time accusing of Christians of being those extending the strong arm of the government into the family.

Government does so much harm, through divorce courts, ruling and regulating that "marriage contract". People literally go mad enough to kill their own children.

And now Liberals are creating a new society, intruding into every aspect of life, of Liberal design. 

A Marriage Contract of Liberal design. 

Religious Zealots simply stopped what always was, and now Obama and the Democrats are changing things back to normal?

I am sure, over time you will win with that argument.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Gays +1
> Fundies -5
> 
> It will never stop amusing me to know that if Fundies hadn't spent so much time demonizing gay people SSM would never have been taken seriously.
> ...



Sorry, the only "fundies" I see in this thread are liberal fundies who are dead set on being as dishonest and rude as they have to be in order to force society to accept gay marriage.

It wasn't more than 10 years ago, these very same liberal fundies were blaming Karl Rove for getting Bush re-elected by putting gay marriage on the ballot in key swing states.... now suddenly, a majority of America is all for gay marriage? 

Then we have the constitutionality of DOMA. The only part of DOMA ruled unconstitutional is Section 3, which attempts to define marriage for the states... a power the Federal government does not have under the 5th Amendment. That's NOT a ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, sorry!


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 13, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Her answer remains the same. I don't give a shit what *consenting adults* do with each other.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 13, 2014)

Boss said:


> [
> Sorry, the only "fundies" I see in this thread are liberal fundies who are dead set on being as dishonest and rude as they have to be in order to force society to accept gay marriage.
> 
> *It wasn't more than 10 years ago, these very same liberal fundies were blaming Karl Rove for getting Bush re-elected by putting gay marriage on the ballot in key swing states.... now suddenly, a majority of America is all for gay marriage? *
> ...



exactly.  People voted for Bush and they didn't get gay marriage banned, but what they did get was more war and recession and the damned fool nearly let Wall Street Loot the Social Security Trust Fund. 

What happened in the 10 years since then is that people got a chance to really think about it.  And they figured out we had bigger problems than a couple of dudes getting married.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

elektra said:


> Yes, I am appealing to antiquity, nothing more.


As soon as I read this, I saw no reason to read any further.  As soon one admits to using a logical fallacy - an illogical argument - then any positions they come to after that are irrelevant as they are all built on on illogical premise.

You are dismissed.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



LMFAO... If Bush ran for president today, he'd beat Obama in a landslide. 
And he wouldn't even have to mention marriage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Her answer remains the same. I don't give a shit what *consenting adults* do with each other.



I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other either. I do give a shit what my government does, what it sanctions, and the laws it establishes for society to live by.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Her answer remains the same. I don't give a shit what *consenting adults* do with each other.
> ...


So do I.  I want our society to be what it is meant be: One that protects people's right to live their private lives as they see fit, to love whomever they choose, to commit their lives to whomever they choose, and to marry whomever they choose, without moralistic busybodies telling them they are "less worthy" just because they don't personally like their behavior.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Well, but our society has never been one where everyone is just free to do whatever the hell they want with no regard for morals. If people want to engage in homosexual activity behind closed doors, I am all for government protecting their right to do so, as long as they are consenting adults. If they want to pretend they are husband and wife... I don't care about that either. If they want to dress up or do role play... don't care... Even if they want to run around in public doing PDAs... I can live with that. I am opposed to the US Government legitimizing or sanctioning homosexuality through marriage. I think it's a dangerous precedent and will lead to bigger and more undesirable problems down the road. 

Not gonna change my mind. You can call me names. You can insult me. You can refuse to recognize my point of view. Never going to change my mind. I am willing to meet you half way... I favor comprehensive civil union reforms which would remove government from the "marriage license" business and replace that with simple contracts between any two adults of legal age. I think that is a reasonable solution which allows churches and religious groups to maintain sanctity of traditional marriage and also allows homosexual couples the ability to obtain benefits and whatnot. If you can't compromise, oh fucking well.... we will just have to keep fighting and keep defending traditional marriage. This isn't going away.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your entire rant is based on that phrase in bold, and red.  Your alleged "harm" is one of of presumed moral position.  Which brings me back to my earlier question, which you pretended wasn't asked.

From whence do you derive your presumed authority to *declare* what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> From whence do you derive your presumed authority to *declare* what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?



From whence are YOU presuming this authority? I bet it's the same place. 

You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want. 

Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 13, 2014)

R.D. said:


> All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”
> 
> 
> In a nutshell


 The laws rendered defunct by the Supreme Court's "limbo/attrition" non-decision de facto Decision do no longer prohibit polygamy.  Two people isn't protected.  Polygamy is legal now until further notice/amended laws etc..


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 13, 2014)

Marriage Equality


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 13, 2014)

Boss said:


> [
> 
> LMFAO... If Bush ran for president today, he'd beat Obama in a landslide.
> And he wouldn't even have to mention marriage.



Are you on drugs?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > From whence do you derive your presumed authority to *declare* what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?
> ...


I'm *not* that's the point.  I am insisting that my personal moral views have absolutely no authority over the actions of anyone else, and neither do yours.  No one's does.  That is the point of the freedom from religion - *no one* gets to demand that anyone else live in accordance with one's personal moral views.



Boss said:


> You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.


Yes, we do.  However those laws must conform to the liberties enumerated in the Constitution.  We do not have unlimited freedom to pass any laws we see fit.



Boss said:


> Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.


Really?  Because you seem awfully willing to force everyone to conform to your views on what makes a marriage, and on the "morality" of homosexuality.  It would seem to me that the people who understand that "have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do," are the ones who, while they themselves, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, are in favor of letting everyony - *including homosexuals* - enjoy all of the rights, and liberties of everyone else.

Go ahead.  Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Well sure you are! You are trying to force me to live with homosexuals marrying. And now you reveal that it's because you basically believe in no moral boundaries whatsoever. Doesn't really matter how perverse or sick it might be, you don't think we have the right to impose our moral views. 

There is no "freedom *from* religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious. 

But now... aren't the seculars always claiming human morality is some sort of primal trait that doesn't base itself in religion? That atheists and god-haters are fully capable of being moral without a God? Here we see a clear example of what sort of "morality" is acceptable, or becomes acceptable quickly, as you remove moral boundaries and confront taboos. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.
> ...



Sorry, but the only thing "enumerated" in the Constitution are the powers enumerated to government. We are endowed inalienable rights. We have the right to self-govern, meaning we have the right to establish the boundaries of our liberties as a society. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.
> ...



You seem to be confused here... you have said you want to make it law of the land that homosexuals can marry. I have advocated for civil unions and removing government from the position of dictating what marriage means to the individual.... Which one of us is trying to impose their moral view on the other???

Liberty-shmiberty! This is NOT about LIBERTY! There is no place on this planet or in this universe, where everybody gets to just do as they goddam-well-please! Every law, rule, code of the most rudimentary human tribe, is some kind of restraint, restriction or limitation of some form of "liberty" in some way. We do not have the "liberty" to run around naked hurling our shit at each other. It's just the way it is! In a civil society, freedoms and liberties are restricted and limited. In OUR society, we have the constitutional right to establish those boundaries. 

I believe in liberty more than you! You want a court or government to mandate Gay Marriage. Period! That is what you want, and nothing less will do. I am opposed to government mandating anything! I want THE PEOPLE to have that liberty on their own, without government involved. Why is government getting to tell us what the hell "marriage" is? Why can't individuals have the liberty to decide that for themselves?


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> ...Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...


Child sexual molestation is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

Bestiality is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

Necrophilia is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

Homosexuality is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

The only reason why homosexuality is disappearing from the list of taboos is an unfortunate and grotesque relaxation of related morals in The West.

However, vast numbers of people believe that homosexuality should remain on that list of taboos, and most probably believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

And, subsequent to that, vast numbers of people believe that gay marriage serves to normalize or legitimize an immoral state of affairs.

Most of those, too, probably believe in liberty - there is no conflict.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2014)

Boss said:


> Well sure you are! You are trying to force me to live with homosexuals marrying. And now you reveal that it's because you basically believe in no moral boundaries whatsoever. Doesn't really matter how perverse or sick it might be, you don't think we have the right to impose our moral views.
> 
> There is no "freedom *from* religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.
> 
> But now... aren't the seculars always claiming human morality is some sort of primal trait that doesn't base itself in religion? That atheists and god-haters are fully capable of being moral without a God? Here we see a clear example of what sort of "morality" is acceptable, or becomes acceptable quickly, as you remove moral boundaries and confront taboos.



dude, you're melting down here.  

religious morality has included Crusades, Jihads, torture of heretics, burning of witches, suppression of science and a lot of other bullshit every time a King got horny and wanted a new wife. 

And you are getting upset because a couple of dudes are having the butt-sex.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ...religious morality has included Crusades, Jihads, torture of heretics, burning of witches, suppression of science and a lot of other bullshit every time a King got horny and wanted a new wife...


No, those are examples of the _twisting and perverting_ of religious morality - and marketing those perversions to an illiterate populace - to accomplish worldly objectives.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 15, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course there's freedom from religion.

This post is an example of some of the worst manifestations of religion, and why our Constitution prohibits its codification.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ...religious morality has included Crusades, Jihads, torture of heretics, burning of witches, suppression of science and a lot of other bullshit every time a King got horny and wanted a new wife...
> ...



Ah, the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy!  

"When the Churches burned witches, they were perverting religious morality!" 

Um... no. 

It says to kill witches, right in the Bible.  

"Thou Shall not Suffer a Witch to Live!" 

The bible tells us to murder witches and people who work on the Sabbath and our kids if they talk back to us and a whole lot of other things, but no one but crazy people take that seriously today.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.


 
Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married?  Or someone having multiple spouses?  Be careful how you answer.  It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...


 
If the argument for same sex marriage centers around consenting adults who love each other being able to get married, there is no difference.  Same applies to close relatives marrying if the argument is truly about equality.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

R.D. said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality.  They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry.  However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases.  Hypocrites.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
> 
> Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.
> 
> MYOB


 
Seems you lefties say the government has no place in our private lives until you want them there . 

You can support what you want but understand that no same sex marriage will ever be equal to mine.  They will be considered second rate to anyone that matters.  For those like you that think differently, what you think doesn’t matter because YOU don’t matter.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ...This post is an example of some of the worst manifestations of religion, and why our Constitution prohibits its codification.


Separation of Church and State is largely a good thing.

Up to (but not including) the point where the Secular State begins to accommodate sexual perversion and similar aberrations.

We live in a Secularized Christian state.

Our laws, morals, philosophy and culture are based upon the European Christian tradition, as that evolved from the combination of Roman and Frankish and Germanic traditions that we inherited from Antiquity, as preserved and embellished and edited by The Church (a.k.a. the Roman Catholic Church,all across Western Europe, pre-Reformation).

Our Founding Fathers merely decided to ban The Church from interfering in governance, but did not put barriers in place to prevent The Church from heavily influencing the philosophical baseline behind our laws, nor to prevent the majority bloc of Believers from crafting laws which mirrored religious teachings insofar as may be practicable.

The Supreme Court acts as a brake against excesses in that vein, but, in recent times, it has undertaken far more social engineering - judicial activism - than many feel warranted or safe, with respect to the long-term well-being of the Republic and its People.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Jesus of Nazareth:

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"

"Love thy neighbor, as thee love thyself"

The New Testament trumps the Old.

The Old is there as both an early attempt to explain existence and as historical narrative.

The Old continues to serve in a secondary capacity as moral guide only for situations which cannot be resolved through a scrutiny and application of the New.

New trumps Old.

How can you condemn a witch when such judgment contradicts the parameters laid down by The Founder (Jesus) concerning judgement?

And that's just one counterpoint.

I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth saying that it was OK to go to war (Crusade), in order to advance The Faith, or to defend The Faithful.

Unlike Islam, whose sacred texts are absolutely _saturated_ with such permissions to commit violence and wage war against the Unbeliever.

The Crusades were first and foremost a matter of worldly churchmen, conniving alongside secular leaders, twisting and perverting the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, directed against a population which was 99.99% illiterate, many centuries ago, in order to pull that off.

If Jesus had time-traveled into the era of the Crusades, and seen what his Church was doing in his name, he would have bitch-slapped the big shots who twisted his teachings like that.

If Muhammed had time-traveled into the era of the Crusades (Jihad), and seen what his Mosque was doing in his name, he would have clapped the Islamic big shots on the back and praised their faithfulness.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> The New Testament trumps the Old.
> 
> The Old is there as both an early attempt to explain existence and as historical narrative.



Uh. NO. Not even a nice try. 

Your argument would hold water if you all stopped doing the stupid shit after Jesus.  

But "Christians" were still burning witches as late as the 18th century.  

List of people executed for witchcraft - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> If Jesus had time-traveled into the era of the Crusades, and seen what his Church was doing in his name, he would have bitch-slapped the big shots who twisted his teachings like that.



If Jesus time traveled to today, he'd bitch-slap most of the Christian right.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > The New Testament trumps the Old.
> ...


Are you operating under the impression that I dispute the idea that so-called Christians burned witches?

I'm not.

I merely hold that they allowed the Old Testament injunction to override the New - ignoring the teachings of Jesus in order to persecute those whom they perceived to threaten their well-being.

They twisted and perverted - or, in this case, simply *ignored* - the newer and overriding teachings of Jesus - in order to conduct such persecutions.


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > If Jesus had time-traveled into the era of the Crusades, and seen what his Church was doing in his name, he would have bitch-slapped the big shots who twisted his teachings like that.
> ...



Quite possibly, in connection with a number of issues.

Nolo contendere.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> [
> 
> I merely hold that they allowed the Old Testament injunction to override the New - ignoring the teachings of Jesus in order to persecute those whom they perceived to threaten their well-being.
> 
> They twisted and perverted - or, in this case, simply *ignored* - the newer and overriding teachings of Jesus - in order to conduct such persecutions.



Except Jesus said no such thing.  

“*For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)*


Jesus did not say to end Slavery, or stop killing the gays, or that you should stop killing witches. 

So this shit stopped, not because the BIble Changed or God Changed his mind, but because WE did. 
​


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Ah, yes, the ever-popular debate between early Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity.

Gentiles were large excused from adherence to much of Mosaic Law very early-on during the formative decades of Christianity.

Leaving the New Testament to trump the Old.

Church scholars debated for centuries, what constituted fulfillment of The Law and Prophecy, in a Gentile context.

The debate continues - articulated by the various schools of thought which foster the debate.

Pauline Christians who take seriously the philosophical break with Mosaic Law, usually assume the New-trumps-Old stance.

But that's another conversation, in another forum zone.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2014)

Okay, but your claim was that JESUS invalidated the Old Testament's laws, not Paul. 

Paul who never met Jesus.  (Although he was probably the guy who made him up.)


----------



## Kondor3 (Oct 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, but your claim was that JESUS invalidated the Old Testament's laws, not Paul...


Fair enough, although I would have penned it as:

Pauline detachment of New Testament teachings from Mosaic Law - on behalf of Gentile converts - yielded the New-trumps-Old mindset/environment.



> ...Paul who never met Jesus...


So we are led to believe, historically.



> ...(Although he was probably the guy who made him up.)


Possibly.

Personally, I'm under the impression that Jesus of Nazareth did, indeed, exist - despite the lack of official documentation at a distance of two millennia - but, of course, his nature, and the interpretation of his reported teachings, are a constant source of dispute and debate.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Our Constitution states government can't establish a religion. Religion is codified in every law that exists. 

Again, "Freedom From Religion" is a concept which doesn't exist in the Constitution, or in any other civilized society that I am aware of.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I agree with this last part.

If the 1st protects the free exercise of religion, there isn't any reason why the US senate can't have a Xmas tree or the ten commandments on a statue in the lobby...as long as the government doesn't pay for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2014)

_Seems you_ *far righties* _say the government has no place in our private lives until you want them there . _


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _Seems you_ *far righties* _say the government has no place in our private lives until you want them there . _


Yep, the right is all about creating laws about abortion, gay marriage, and the practice of Islam.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.  That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 

So you would support a law allowing a brother and sister, both adults, to get married?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2014)

martybegan said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


So...?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


So you can't discuss gay marriage on ITS merits but have to go off onto incest (which is illegal)?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



I'm refuting his point.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


Scratches head...you really just posted that?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 

So you can't hold to a principle of equality although that is what you claim to argue.  My point, which you totally missed, is if you truly believe in equality, you'd fight for those to be legal, even if you don't agree, because that's what you demand the rest of us do with the fags.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
It has no merits.  It's simply two homos demanding everyone support what they believe.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There are two problems with your reply.

First, how does "forcing you to live with homosexuals marrying" affect *your personal morals* in any way?  Does it force *you* to believe that homosexuality is moral?  Does it force *you* to marrya someone of the same sex? How does it change *your personal morals whatsoever*?  If the answer is "They don't", then I am not forcing any moral position on you.

Second, I absolutely believe in moral boundaries; those boundaries end at *your front door*.



Boss said:


> There is no "freedom *from* religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.


You know, I am so sick of this stupid defelction.  You know perfectly well that the first amendment not only protects the right of every person to practice their *personal* religion without interference from the government, but also protects every person *from* being forced to live according to anyone else's religious moral code.  That is "freedom from religion".  It isn't a guarantee that you will never be *exposed* to religious thought; only that you will never be coerced into practicing any religion, or behaving in accordance with any religion's moral code.



Boss said:


> > Boss said:
> >
> >
> > > You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.
> ...


Really?  So the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights guaranteed to *the people*?  The 14th amendment is not a guarantee to the *people?*  You're full of shit, and you know it.  There are a number of rights guaranteed *to every citizen* of the United States.  Your right to "self-govern", ends exactly there - *self*.  You do not have the unlimited right to pass any law that you see fit, and expect that law to be enforced, simply by virtue of the fact that it was enacted by majority rule.  I guarantee you will not find *that* in the Constitution.



Boss said:


> > Boss said:
> >
> >
> > > Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.
> ...


That entirely depends.  When you say that you advocate "civil unions", do you mean that you support this for homosexuals, or for *everyone*.  So long as you support that for everyone, and you support relegating the "Marriage Certificate" to the same realm as the "Certificate of Baptism", and the "Certificate of Confirmation" - that is to say, a useless piece of paper, that has no meaning to anyone other than the Church that issued it, and has no value in civil government whatsoever - then sure, I am in full agreement with you.  However, good luck getting the religious to agree with *that*.  On the other hand, if you are suggesting that straights should get to have their "marriages" recognized by the state, while the Gays have to make due with "civil unions", then sorry.  That is not equality.



Boss said:


> Liberty-shmiberty! This is NOT about LIBERTY! There is no place on this planet or in this universe, where everybody gets to just do as they goddam-well-please! Every law, rule, code of the most rudimentary human tribe, is some kind of restraint, restriction or limitation of some form of "liberty" in some way. We do not have the "liberty" to run around naked hurling our shit at each other. It's just the way it is! In a civil society, freedoms and liberties are restricted and limited. In OUR society, we have the constitutional right to establish those boundaries.
> 
> I believe in liberty more than you! You want a court or government to mandate Gay Marriage. Period! That is what you want, and nothing less will do. I am opposed to government mandating anything! I want THE PEOPLE to have that liberty on their own, without government involved. Why is government getting to tell us what the hell "marriage" is? Why can't individuals have the liberty to decide that for themselves?


Bullshit.  You obviously still have no understanding of the concepts of either "Liberty", or the "Law".  The entire purpose of the Law is to protect *me* from *you*.  Nothing more, nothing less. "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins."  That applies not only to the limitation of *my* actions, but also to   the limitation of your right to *limit* my action.  If I am not doing *you* demonstrable harm, then any attempt from you to limit my behavior is a violation of my individual liberty.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Yes


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Wow....12 alerts for replies and comments from my earlier post......all of them mindless and hatefull.

It's enough to burn me out on forums like this, they're getting so predictable.

Now I'm probably going to get all that "well if you can't back up your argument with facts"...or "I win, I win, he quit"......ahhh!....ehhh!...enough!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ...Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...
> ...


Morality has not one thing to do with why those are illegal.  They are illegal because every one of them transgresses the boundary of the law - they protect *me* from *you*.   With the possible exception of necrophilia.  Since a dead body is a thing, not a person, that would be more about property rights.  So long as you actually *own* the dead body in question, what you do with it behind closed doors is, I suppose, none of my business.



Kondor3 said:


> Homosexuality is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.
> 
> The only reason why homosexuality is disappearing from the list of taboos is an unfortunate and grotesque relaxation of related morals in The West.
> 
> ...


I would submit that what you are calling a "grotesque relaxation of morals", I would call a much needed shift in moral comprehension.  "The West", as you put it, is finally recognizing that homosexuals are *people first,* and , as such, the moral, and ethical choice is *always* to let *people* make decisions about their personal lives for themselves without self-righteous judgement from others over personal choices.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.
> ...


I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes".  However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually *demand* the "right"  to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy.  The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would *oppose* someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right.  Someone really needs to tell me why that is...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...
> ...


Actually that's not entirely true.  There are a number of  benefits to marriage that would require completely new verbiage, and considerations, due to polygamy.  For instance, if you become incapacitated you *spouse* has the right to make your medical decisions for you.  Now, if you were engaged in polygamy, *which* spouse?  Would it have to be a consensus among all of them?  If not, how would it be determined which spouse has more authority than the others?  That's just one example of how the policies, and procedures would need to be rewritten to accommodate for polygamy.  So, there actually is a legislative onus added to legitimizing polygamy that doesn't exist with same-sex marriage.  After all, spouse means spouse; no re-writing necessary.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


And, yet, it is consistently the *Old Testament* - Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." - that Christians call on to justify their attitude toward homosexuality.  I love how Christians use the Old Testament to club people over the head with when it suits their purpose, but, when the violence, and savagery of the Old testament is pointed out, suddenly it's all,"Wellll...that's _Old Testament_.  It doesn't _really_ count,"

And they wonder why so many of us perceive them as hypocrites...


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 
All that tripe doesn't change the fact that the argument used by the same sex supporters is about the process itself even occuring not about how it functions.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


No.  I dispute your attempt to distance yourself from the actions by reffering to them as *so-called* Christians.  They were *so-called*, because that is what they were.  The Inquisition was conducted by *The Catholic Church*, the oldest, most well respected Christian organization in existence.  The witch hunts of the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries were headed by Puritans, and Quakers.  They *were* Christians who were faithful, and devout, and absolutely believed in the divine guidance, and approval of their actions.  These were not small groups of fanatics who were disavowed by the religious masses of their day.  They *were*  the religious masses of their day.

If you would like to be seen as something other than a hypocrite, the least you can do is stop trying to diminish the historical actions of your religion by qualifying your responses with terms like "so-called".


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


It does *now*.  I'll guarantee it didn't until a bunch of homophobic old white guys ran off to their state legislature to have the definition changed.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 
Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.  Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing.   If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

martybegan said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


What people *applied for* has nothing to do with *how the law was written*.  The fact is that the law *was written* with no such restriction.  You are not arguing the definition of the law, or the words; you are arguing the actions of the people.  Those are two very different things.  Guess what?  Interracial couples didn't apply for marriage licenses before 50 years ago.  However, when the law was attempted to be changed so that there were racial limitations, the people attempting to change the meaning of the words were told, "Sorry, just because no one did it before, doesn't mean that the words don't mean what they mean".

Same here.  Just because no one did it before doesn't mean that the words do not mean what they mean.  Thus adding a limiting phrase, in order to alter the definition was something *you guys* did.  The rest of us just want the definition changed back to what it was before your meddling.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.



There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825. 

What's your point?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2014)

That as always, Pop, you make a fallacy of false comparison.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
> ...


My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Perhaps.  And I don't disagree that polygamists - were they to demand the right of their marriages being recognized - would, most likely, win that debate.  However, that would not necessarily automatically win them the right they demand, as they would have an added hurdle of function to overcome that standard same-sex couples don't have.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Here in the United States?  Really?  Would you care to support that with references?


Conservative65 said:


> The right *does* exist.  Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing.   If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.


Getting the government to *recognize* that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of.  I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would *oppose* the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
You can guarantee it?  That requires proof and proof involves more than you saying you can guarantee it. 

Actually the practice of a man and woman only is nothing new in my State.  You would know if you actually looked rather than running your mouth about what you think you can guarantee.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.
> ...


The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago.  You are talking about *changing existing law* in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly *did* exist 100 years ago.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
You guys?  Do you mean those of us that support the normal version of marriage not two homos trying to make it as if what they want comes anywhere close to it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


 
I don't support incestuous marriages.  However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 
Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples. 

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it. 

I am sure you realize this. 

Correct?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



This should be illegal

Nuff for me


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The two demographic groups are nowhere close to being equal by biology. The law cannot change this TRUTH.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 
I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution.  It is sad that you think it does.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



No hypocrisy there, only with you.  Two people getting married and their rights are protected by the Constitution.  Polygamy is not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative5, leave it to the courts and the legislatures, because your feelings mean nothing in law.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


 
Show me in the Constitution where what you call a right related to marriage says it only applies to two people.  You can't which makes you a hypocrite and a moron for even thinking marriage is a right.  Run along Forrest.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative5, leave it to the courts and the legislatures, because your feelings mean nothing in law.



Much easier to convince 9 enablers to agree that these poor sad folks require marriage than it is an entire State. 

That's the game. 

The delusional seek out enablers and enablers seem out the delusional. 

Nothing new in that


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Stating that something is a practice, and that it has been codified by law, are two very different things.  What state is it that you live in, again?  I mean, you can make whatever claims you want about what "your state" has always had codified into law, so long as you keep your state anonymous, so that your claims cannot be verified.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Your state's definition is unconstitutional.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Yes. I mean you moralistic zealots, who feel you have the right to demand, by altering the the law, that people behave according to your personal moral beliefs.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


They are equal under the constitution so the "coupling" bullshit is just that. Bullshit.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



In the end, when us moralistic types turn our heads and walk away from all perversion, the world will be a far far better place?

Rigggghhhhttttttttt


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



If they ain't equal in biology, ain't no law going to change that

You are denying biology, a sure sign of delusion.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner


----------



## hazlnut (Oct 15, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
> 
> Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.
> 
> MYOB





Great post --


----------



## hazlnut (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Your lovers dick fits nicely in your ass -- a perfect biological match.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Another fallacy of false comparison.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

hazlnut said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Here's a bit of bad news, I ain't interested in you, so describing your experiences with anal sex aint helping your cause


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Wrong weird lil dood


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 Not when the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


You conflate *support* for an ideological concept with no real world application, to *fighting* for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices.  Allow me to be clear:  I *support* the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy.  I will not waste my time trying to gain government *recognition* of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 
What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in  the Constitution. 

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



See how the delusional justify their delusions?

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 
Not when your entire argument for same sex marriage is based on equality.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight.  The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


 
The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality. 

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law. 

Specially not those left to the state aye?


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.
> ...



are you ranting about the bakers again?

no one is allowed to be subjected to bigotry when someone runs a business offering public accommodation.

or do we need to explain it to yet again?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


So...the Supreme Court oversteps their bounds whenever they declare a state law unconstitutional?   like they did in _Loving v. Virginia_?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
The same sex marriage supporters are the ones who claim that two consenting adults should marry even if they are of the same gender because not allowing it is somehow violating their rights.  However, the same ones justify how type sof marriage they disagree with shouldn't be allowed all the while claiming they support equality.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



homos? 

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And marriage has nothing to do with biology, and your fanaticism cannot change THAT truth.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

your bigotry ends at others' noses.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


 
Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil.  I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you.  You don't have to like how I express myself.  You have two options if you don't:  You can either get over it or tough shit.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
Should I take your statement to mean you would support a brother and sister marrying?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Hey hetero!    I'm sorry that you are frightened by gay people.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


There's no reason to change the laws of biology. Marriage isn't a biological function.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



what are you blathering about?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


You're not around the corner, you're here.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 
Not when the authority to do so is addressed in the Constitution.  You lose when you use something that was decided based on race not gender.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The two demographic groups therefor aren't closely related then

Thanks for the help


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
I'm sorry you're retarded enough to think that a homo scares me. 

I'm sorry you think that I have to respond in a way you think I should.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Decisions made by enablers rarely make sense. That's why their called enablers.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 

The problem is their decisions affect the rest of us.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



How cute, a leg humper calling a straight a freak. 

Once again proving your delusion

Honestly folks, you can't make this shit up!


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



that whole "political correctness" rant is just a bigot's way of whining about the fact that what they believe isn't acceptable in normal society.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Laughing at, and scared of are two completely different things.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


How are you affected?


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



how?





Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



you keep making these stupid comments that have no basis in reality.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You should really reconsider your usage of the word "normal"


----------



## Ravi (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You aren't a freakshow because you are straight. And what is a leg humper?


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



if you were "laughing at" them, you wouldn't spend so much of your time talking about them. you'd just shut your stupid mouth and sit back bemused.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



no. you're so far to the extremes, you and your little loony toon friends, that I have no need to do that, little boy


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You just can't make this shit up folks. 

And the laughs it creates are absolutely free!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Lol, omg, your delusion of normalcy is so darned cute!


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.

Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
Isn't it interesting how those who think being with someone having the same parts is normal but being with someone the manner in which those parts were designed to work is a freak?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



It's not a rant, its point you assholes out as the jackbooted thugs you are under your veneer of "fairness"


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
Seems those who think I should respond in a manner they like are the primitive ones.  
Thinking I should do it a certain way because you demand it shows a low level of intelligence and a character level of a whiny bitch.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Unfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacy


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
I'm not the one whining about how someone else expresses an opinion BITCH


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


 
You can't oppress someone when there is not right on what they claim is being oppressed.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


What?...that doesn't make sense


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
Only a puss like you would demand someone express an opinion in a manner that suits you.  Only a low brow coward demands someone do it in a manner he/she likes.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Quote for me where I said that.  If you cannot debate without fabricating my positions, then you should just shut up, so you don't look stupid.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
Sorry you're so stupid you can't understand simple concepts.  If there isn't a right to something you claim, you can't claim a right is being oppressed.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Who made you feel helpless during your life? That's probably why you're acting out.

Most abused people lash out that way. There are very few real homophobes, just people with crappy lives and tons of emotional baggage


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Say, this, what _you_ wrote again, only out loud, to somebody else

"when there is not right on what they claim is being oppressed."


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
Since marriage isn't a right, claiming that someone is oppressing you because they won't let homos get married is a false claim.  You can't claim oppression of a right for something that isn't one.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



sad, isn't it? you'd think that at this point everyone would know a friend or family member who's gay and be used to it. *shakes head*


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
I've been married for 22 years to a woman as it should be.  I have two children, both of whom are normal heterosexuals.  I am the number two person where I work.  I support myself and my family while being forced to support freeloaders with what should be staying with me.  Lots of other successes.    Hardly a crappy life.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
I don't have gay friends and nothing to do with family members that are.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



so you're a jackass in real life, too. 

thanks.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I don't even know what the Hell that means, but okay...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The best comedians try to get audience participation

Good job Jillian!


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



who's freeloading. gays are the highest earning demographic group. 

the freeloaders are the red states.

you really are a kool aid drinker. lmao...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
So now you think you should determine who my friends should be and with which family members I choose to associate?  That's your problem.  You're an arrogant bitch in real life.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Riggggghhhhhtttttt


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Gays could always marry in all 50 states

What are you babbling about?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
In my State, the largest freeloading group is the blue district by far.  They, and it was gerrymandered with over 65% black in order to make sure a black was elected, are the poorest.  Seems they make the rest of the State look bad.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 

That's what the same sex supporters don't seem to understand.  Not one state has said you can't get married if you're homosexual.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Puleeeezeeee, you support incest and polygamy, one might make an educated assumption as to why. 

Makes you feel better?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I know, that's their delusion after all


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
Wrong.  My argument using those as an example show how the same sex supporters claiming they believe in marriage equality quickly show their argument is for an agenda as they do exactly toward certain types of marriages they say is wrong if done toward same sex ones


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Really?...there is something wrong if you're getting as angry as you are, because a tiny fraction of the dollars you pay in taxes pay for things you don't like.

You're either allowing some righty news agency to outrage you over someone else's battle, or there is more to your anger and hatred than you comprehend.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


And I see the 14th amendment that requires that everyone be treated equally under the law.  And that right applies to federal, STATE, even local laws.  So, while you do get to regulate marriage at a state level, you still have to do so in a way that treats everyone equally.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
There is something wrong with you if you think a penny of what I've earned should go to any individual other than the ones I want.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


That's a flat out lie.  I have said, repeatedly, that I also support incestuous marriage, and polygamy.  How is it that you have not understood that, every time I've said it?  Actually bolding the words was an attempt to help you understand the idiocy of your position.  I can see that this may be impossible...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 
There is no law I know of that says a homosexual can't get married.   Since none exists, they are being treated equally.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


 
You said you support the concept.  There's a difference you seem to stupid to grasp.  Perhaps it's because you've been cornholed too many times.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to *expand* civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties?  No?  Then you're right.  We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that *you* are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I'm not sure you understand how things work in our constitutional republic.

A. You vote for someone.
B. You pay taxes.
C. The people who got elected spend the dollars you're taxed.

It isn't carte blanche'. You don't get to decide what tax money goes where if your guy lost the election. Because they should be spending tax dollars using the platform on which they were elected, by a majority.

You can't just get all cranky and say you don't want any tax dollars spent on welfare, or whatever has got your goat


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So Real Estate law is the same in all 50 states?

How exciting aye ?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No one is doing that.  Show me where I was have claimed that I "disagree" with incestuous, or polygamous marriage.  The *only* claim that I have made is that there is no one demanding the "right" of polygamous, or incestuous marriage in the United States, so there is no one on who's behalf to demand those rights.  You are trying to force a fight for rights for people who do not exist.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So says you.  However, since we already know from _Loving v Virginia_ that the 14th most assuredly applies to marriage, and the courts have, thus far, ruled contrary to your statement, that your opinion of what the 14th does, and does not, apply to is erroneous.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Not only is equality is not the same as identical, but equality doesn't apply to how statutes are worded from state to datate, but how statutes are applied from person to person, regardless of what state the said statute is passed in.  Wow...you're really not very good at this, are you?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Actually they are both adult American citizens, so they are both guaranteed the exact same protection under the law.

And you're welcome.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


So could blacks, and whites before _Loving v Virginia_, so long as they married the people that *bigots* found acceptable.  That logic didn't work then, and it doesn't work, now.  It's about the ability to marry the person *of your choosing,* without outside interference.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


In other words, you are making assumptions about my views, and just pulling shit out of your ass.  Like I said, if you can't debate without making shit about about my positions, you should just shut up, instead of looking stupid.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Except your argument fails, when those of us who actually mean what we say, indicate that we aren't the least bit worried about incestuous, or polygamous marriage, either.

And, for the record, Conservative65, I don't "support" same sex marriage.  I don't give a shit about same sex marriage, one way, or the other.  What I support is every single American citizen being allowed to decide for their damn selves who they marry.  I don't care if that is someone of the opposite sex.  I don't care if it's someone of the same sex.  I don't care if it's a mother, daughter, son, cousin, brother, or sister.  It is their business, and I could really care less about their choices, as they do not affect my choices even a little bit.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Then please explain the following Supreme Court rulings: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



And before the SCOTUS ruled on Loving, blacks and whites were not prevented from marrying either. New bigots, new target...same old arguments.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It wasn't intended to address interracial marriage, marriage for prisoners or marriage for divorcees either...and yet was cited in SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage a fundamental right.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Lol, do you think that, when the 14th was brought forth , that if it included the idea that same sex marriage would be included, it would pass?

That is the height of delusion.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No one is stopping anyone from marrying.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No one is being denied the right to marry dummy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I'll leave looking stoopid up to the LGBTQ-LMNOP's


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 15, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Interesting article in the Federalist:
> 
> Stop Calling It Marriage Equality
> 
> ...



Sorry to hear that some spokesmen for the Mormon Church have caved in and have "accepted" gay marriage as inevitable.  I'm not Mormon but I held their sense of family values in fairly high regard.  Oh well ... que sera!  The size of the overall Christian church is shrinking but the folks who remain are the hardcore Christians I prefer to associate with. In other words, quality is far more important to me that quantity. I'm not Catholic either but I appreciate the fact that they're still standing strong. Dead wood must be pruned for the tree to remain strong.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yup. Gays have ALWAYS had the right to marry. Just find someone of the opposite sex like normal folks and get married. Problem solved.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



So Stevie Nicks MUST marry me!

Sweet!

Anyone else noticed how the stock market has taken a dump since the SCOTUS refused to hear the states appeals. 

Just sayin


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> There are two problems with your reply.
> 
> First, how does "forcing you to live with homosexuals marrying" affect *your personal morals* in any way?  Does it force *you* to believe that homosexuality is moral?  Does it force *you* to marrya someone of the same sex? How does it change *your personal morals whatsoever*?  If the answer is "They don't", then I am not forcing any moral position on you.



How does it affect your personal morals to say marriage is between a man and woman? Forcing me to accept gay marriage affects the society I have to live in. I don't want an amoral society or the problems that comes with one. 



> Second, I absolutely believe in moral boundaries; those boundaries end at *your front door*.



But you've already stated that you don't believe in moral boundaries, or at least, you don't believe we have the right to dictate those to others through law. Marriage has nothing to do with your front door. No one is banning homosexual relationships behind closed doors... if that ever happens, let me know, I'll be on your side. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "freedom *from* religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.
> ...



Nonsense. There is no "freedom from religion." Virtually every law we have is rooted in someone's religious moral code, there is no way to filter out religious morality and still have civil society. We have laws against theft and murder... that's someone's religious code you are being forced to abide. So you have a silly and ridiculous argument with no merit. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > Boss said:
> ...



Again, the only thing "enumerated" in the Constitution are the powers of government. Our freedom is unlimited, we simply decide on the boundaries of that freedom through a democratic process. That is self-government. The Bill of Rights is a list of inalienable rights the government can't impinge, or at least, aren't supposed to have the power to. 

And you are correct, I don't have the right to pass any law I see fit and expect that law to be enforced. However, I DO have the right to petition for redress and lobby for any law I want to be passed, and if a large enough contingent agrees with me, such law can be passed. There is no restrictions on that, anything we please as a collective society can be made law of the land. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > > Boss said:
> ...



Sorry but there are numerous laws which limit your actions regardless of whether or not you find harm in those actions. The purpose of law is to establish civil society. My right is the right to self-govern in a free democratic society where the government has enumerated power and my liberty is limited only by the laws the self-governing people have established. 

What YOU want is a Fascist state, where your cronies in government can dictate how I live and what liberties I can have. You think that because your liberal movement has made some headway in the past couple of decades, this is a safe bet. You're willing to blindly turn your liberty over to government because you view government as the defender of liberal issues. You're fine with government mandating our liberty because right now, government is your friend. If the tables were ever turned, you'd literally be having a cow in the streets while standing on one ear. You're fine with a Fascist liberal state, you'd be totally opposed to a Fascist conservative or religious state.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting article in the Federalist:
> ...


It's pretty funny and poetic justice what has happened in Utah considering how much money the Mormon Church spent in California on Prop H8.    Total poetic justice.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Has Stevie Nicks consented to marry you?


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



States have the right to make determinations about status. Their determinations, however, cannot be issued unequally. in other words, they must provide equal protection under the law. As marriage is a fundamental right (see Loving v Virginia as you were advised to do above) the right cannot be restricted unless the government has a good reason to do so. Bigotry is not only NOT a good reason, it is exactly what the Court would rule against. As you can see, the Court has allowed the Federal Circuits to strike down ban after ban. When one of the Circuits upholds the ban, the high Court will have to act to resolve disagreement between the Circuits. So, I think it's a pretty fair bet that you need to get used to not giving a rat's patoot about who consenting adults (who have nothing to do with you) love.

I always wonder why it's always the pretend small government types who want to stick their nose into others' most personal decisions but have nervous breakdown the minute they're not allowed to buy a 30 ounce soda.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


 
Wrong.  It addressed RACE.  People like you with a very loose interpretation have deemed it otherwise.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 
Someone that has no clue about the Constitution has no business advising someone that does to do anything. 

You left out something about striking down the ban.  It was done by left wing, activists, faggot loving Liberal judges.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 
States have the right to define marriage. 

It's not the personal decisions that people make that bothers me.  It's people like you thinking the ones I make have to suit you and the rest of the faggots. 

As far as the 30 ounce soda, the problem there is the same people who support such a ban are the same ones that say they believe in freedom and choice then do those bans justifying it as they are looking out for the people.  While you may not be able to do the math, I can buy two at 16 oz which adds up to 32 total.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
So you don't give a shit about anything. That fits because you aren't worth one either.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
Your claim about no one demanding one of those types of marriages is false.  If, as you say, those people don't exists, why are there laws prohibiting something you say no one wants?  Governmental bodies didn't just think of writing them out of the blue.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



moron, the ban in texas was struck down by a bush appointee.

and now go take your own advice because you don't have a clue about constitutional construction.

now please run along and bother someone else.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
What I don't do is look at the Constitution in the faulty manner in which you exists. 

When you have the ability to make me run along, do so.  Until then, I don't work for a bitch like you, therefore, you tell me nothing about how or what I should do.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



faulty? you mean the way real judges to?

thanks for your expert advice.

again, i'd suggest you actually learn something because you clearly don't know anything about this particular subject.

big man though... .at least in your own imagination. but i guess someone who feels threatened by other people loving each other really is pretty insecure about his own sexuality.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I hate to keep finishing sentences, but you failed to add (insert this prior to the hand clapping)

.....and how the US Government sent troops into the Utah territory to insure marriage remained between one man and one woman. 

Always happy to hep ya folks complete your thought process


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Judges are just as likely to be enablers as anyone else.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Gays have always been allowed to marry 

You're just being goofy again


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Sadly no

But you're all invited to the wedding!


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Right...that must be why you bigoted fucks keep winning in court...


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The 14th was cited in Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safely (as was the fundamental right to marry). Those two cases had nothing to do with race. Look them up and square them with your "states rights" claim.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> It's pretty funny and poetic justice what has happened in Utah considering how much money the Mormon Church spent in California on Prop H8.    Total poetic justice.



Yup...the ultimate irony.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



since you don't understand EQUAL protection... were non-mormons allowed multiple spouses?

no?

dismissed.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2014)

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.



For a large chunk of our history, women couldn't own property in their own names.  

Because something has always been a certain way isn't a good enough reason.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


 
I guess you'll fail at every effort to show how same sex marriage is a right.  Not one person has ever been denied the right to marry.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


I understand equal.  Your problem is that if same sex couples aren’t allowed to marry, it’s unequal but if same sex couples are and types you don’t like aren’t you still consider that equal.  F*ck off hypocrite.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 15, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Whether government pays for it or not is irrelevant.

The First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of religion, thus protecting citizens' from religion as codified in secular law. This also manifests with the Constitution' prohibition of re


Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of all persons in the United States to be afforded due process and equal protection of the law by the states and local jurisdictions.

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is why such measures are being invalidated by the court in accordance with the Amendment's original intent.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Yeah, you know that was the argument used in _Loving v Virginia_, right?  it didn't work then, either.  A person has the right to marry *whomever they wish, without judgement, or interference from anyone else* - so long as both parties are consenting adults, that is.  And you already know this.  Thank you for playing...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 15, 2014)

“I understand equal. Your problem is that if same sex couples aren’t allowed to marry, it’s unequal but if same sex couples are and types you don’t like aren’t you still consider that equal. F*ck off hypocrite.”


But you don't understand equal protection jurisprudence, or the law in general, for that matter.

Disallowing same-sex couples to marry violates their equal protection rights because they're currently eligible to enter into a marriage contract exactly as marriage law is currently written – unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

That's not the case should three or more persons wish to marry, as there is currently no state law that can accommodate such a configuration. And because there is no law in existence allowing three or more persons to marry, there is no civil rights violation.

Consequently, there is no 'hypocrisy.'


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Yes, there is a difference.  In order to "fight for that right", there would need to be someone who is being denied that right, so that a lawsuit could be filed on their behalf.  You know...a person who is claiming that their right to do something is being denied?  Do we have one of those?  Do you know anyone who wants to marry a relative, and is being told they can't, and wants to file suit?  How about someone who wants to marry more than one spouse, and being told *they* can't, and wants to file suit?  No?  Then just how do you suggest that I should "show my support" for either of those rights, beyond saying that, if someone *did* sue for such a right I would support them?

*One* of us seems to be overly obsessed with cornholing anyway...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Guess what?  It didn't apply to blacks marrying whites, either, until it did.  Kinda cool how that works.  When the guarantee of equal protection is offered, it ends up applying to people that the original authors of the guarantee never dreamed it would apply to...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Wrong.  It addressed MARRIAGE.  People like you who would like to justify your discrimination have tried, and failed, to deem it otherwise.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2014)

*To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.*

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established. 

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> No one is stopping anyone from marrying* who they want*.


I added the part you keep forgetting.  Oh!  Wait!  Adding that part is what would make your statement a lie, isn't it.  Okay.  Saying the same thing over, and over doesn't make it any less pointless.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Well, at least you're honest about it.  "You have the right to marry anyone you want - *so long as we approve*.  That's liberty isn't it???"


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I disagree, the thought would have never crossed their minds. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Yeah, you know that was the argument used in _Loving v Virginia_, right?  it didn't work then, either.  A person has the right to marry *whomever they wish, without judgement, or interference from anyone else* - so long as both parties are consenting adults, that is.  And you already know this.  Thank you for playing...



_Loving v Virginia _has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage. 

You can't marry "whomever you wish without judgment or interference from anyone else" and you admit that. As soon as it pops out of your mouth, you have to apply the caveat "so long as..." Therefore, we see there are criteria to marriage that is applied. You forgot to mention... so long as both are legal age... so long as both are not immediately related... so long as both are living... so long as both are not already married... so long as the fee is paid in full to the clerk... in some states, I think you still have to provide a blood test. So, Loving certainly did not establish that anyone can marry whomever they please without judgement or interference from anyone else. 

I think it's a real dangerous precedent to set when we start allowing "whatever" to be a right.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > There are two problems with your reply.
> ...


Wrong.  Saying, "marriage is between a man and woman" *only*, prevents me from having the personal liberty to marry the person whom I love, and choose to spend the rest of my life with.  Not allowing you to tell other people who that cannot marry, on the other hand, affects no one.  Your "society" is nothing more than a collection of *individuals*.  Besides you didn't say that i was forcing The only "problems" that come with an amoral society is that you do not get to make rules for anyone based on your personal moralistic views. Fortunately, for the rest of us, we have the Constitution to prevent you from creating your Theocratic Utopia.  Hate it for ya.



Boss said:


> > Second, I absolutely believe in moral boundaries; those boundaries end at *your front door*.
> 
> 
> 
> But you've already stated that you don't believe in moral boundaries, or at least, you don't believe we have the right to dictate those to others through law. Marriage has nothing to do with your front door. No one is banning homosexual relationships behind closed doors... if that ever happens, let me know, I'll be on your side.


Marriage has *everything* to do with my front door, with my personal life, with my partner.  Allow me to list for you the many ways that Marriage *affects my family, and are within my front door*:
*Tax Benefits*

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
*Estate Planning Benefits*

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
*Government Benefits*

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
*Employment Benefits*

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
*Medical Benefits*

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
*Death Benefits*

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
*Family Benefits*

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
*Housing Benefits*

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
*Consumer Benefits*

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
*Other Legal Benefits and Protections*

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
So, please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting to me that denying me the right to marry the person I love has nothing to do with my front door.




Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That is a logical fallacy.  Simply because the same concepts are found in two different sources, you cannot presume that the one came about because of the other.  The entire reason the framers of the Constitution added the first amendment, is because they foresaw religious zealots such as yourself attempting to do exactly what you just did, and *presume* a religious source for *civil* law.

Of course it is possible to separate religious morality from civil society.  You do this simply by remembering the purpose of civil law - to protect *me* from *you*.  That is not a religious, or even a moral purpose; it is a simple matter of self-preservation.  Using your example, no one really thinks that murder is wrong.  In fact, because man is a violant, vindictive, vicious creature, almost everyone can think of, at least, one, or two people that they are certain would make the world a better place, if they were just allowed to relieve those people of the need to breathe.  However, everyone who is not mentally ill is rather fond of the practice of breathing themselves.  Hence, I don't want *you* killing *me*.  therefore, as a matter of self- preservation, we all agree that killing each other is not allowed, and that doing so will result in unpleasant consequences for anyone violating that rule we all agreed to.  No great moral code here, just simple self-preservation.  The same is true of every universal civil rule, whether it be theft, or assault, or any thing else.  The very simple principle - which carries absolutely no morality at all - is protecting *me* from *you*.

The only reason anyone ever bothered trying to justify these rules with a religious code is because in addition to being violent, vindictive, and vicious, man is also superstitious.  As such, the clever ones who wanted power realized that the easiest way to justify their edicts was to wrap them in superstition.  You see, there is no reason at all for you to abide by anything *I* say .  However, when I am able to convince you that *"God"* said it, wellll...suddenly these edicts of mine are incontestable.  After all, they were of divine origin!!!  

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, some of you decided that not only was it your responsibility to protect me from *you*, but it was your responsibility to protect me *from myself*.  Guess what?  Not only is that *not* your responsibility; it is not even your prerogative, and every time you pass some stupid morality law, all  you manage to do is violate the individual liberties of the very people you think you are protecting.

Please do us all a favor.  Quit trying to protect us, and mind your own fucking business.  We are not children, and we do not need you to make our decisions for us.



Boss said:


> > Boss said:
> >
> >
> > > > Boss said:
> ...


No, you don't.  Actually, yes...yes you do.  All you have to do is, first, vote to get rid of the Constitution, and the constraints that the Constitution puts on you, and your compatriots, in terms of passing laws.  however, so long as you wish to be part of the *United States*, you have no choice but to accept those constraints.  Which means that you do not get to pass laws that infringe on the rights of others, no matter how much you would like to. 



Boss said:


> > Boss said:
> >
> >
> > > > Boss said:
> ...


You're tight.  The purpose of law is to establish a *civil* society- not a "moral" one, but a *civil* one.  
That is *not* your right.  Your right to self-govern ends at *my right* to self determination.  This is why *our society* included a list of recognized rights that you are not *allowed* to violate with those laws that you wish to enact.

Now, if you don't like those restrictions, by all means, leave.  Find a country, or create a country, that does not put those restrictions on your right of "self-governance".



Boss said:


> What YOU want is a Fascist state, where your cronies in government can dictate how I live and what liberties I can have. You think that because your liberal movement has made some headway in the past couple of decades, this is a safe bet. You're willing to blindly turn your liberty over to government because you view government as the defender of liberal issues. You're fine with government mandating our liberty because right now, government is your friend. If the tables were ever turned, you'd literally be having a cow in the streets while standing on one ear. You're fine with a Fascist liberal state, you'd be totally opposed to a Fascist conservative or religious state.


That's laughable!  *I'm the one* insisting that you do not get to use the government to tell people how they get to live, and you accuse *me* of being the fascist.  That stupid ad hominem is not even worthy of a response.

Moving on...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Really?  So, someone destroys your silly little "Look!  You're all hypocrites!" argument, and your reaction  is an ad hominem. ...pathetic...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Cite them.  Cite one person who has petitioned the court for the right to marry a close relative, or more than one spouse.  No?  that would be because you are full of shit.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

Boss said:


> _Loving v Virginia _has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.



Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

_The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." _
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, you know that was the argument used in _Loving v Virginia_, right?  it didn't work then, either.  A person has the right to marry *whomever they wish, without judgement, or interference from anyone else* - so long as both parties are consenting adults, that is.  And you already know this.  Thank you for playing...
> ...


I didn't forget shit.  all of those other "so long as..." are moralistic bullshit that should not apply.  The constitution applies to *adult citizens of the United States*.  Consent applies directly to the amoral concept of protecting *me* from *you*.  You do not get to do things without my consent.  Non-adults are not, by definition, capable of giving consent.  Therefore marrying a non-adult is an attack on them.  You can keep trying to make this about morality all you want, but that is why you will keep losing.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


WERE.  As WERE blacks at one time.  As WERE women at one time.  As WERE Asians at one time.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Activist "Justices" does not "justice," make.  If America is to retain any true sense of justice then Congress shall rein in Federal Judges who step beyond their bounds.  When the vote of the People, by the People, and for the People is overruled by a single, sycophant judge then an injustice has taken place.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Dummy, they are races. 

Homosexuality is not a race.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > _Loving v Virginia _has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.
> ...



And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick. 

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet. 

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Boss said:


> *To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.
> 
> A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.


You're the one who keeps lying.  The requirements for marriage were two *adults.*  That was it.  There were no other requirements until 1993, when 32 states all changed the language of their statutes, adding the phrase "one man, one woman".  So, you can call it "perverting" the meaning all you want, but that doesn't make it so, and the actual history of how all this has come about is a matter of record, so I don't know who you think you are fooling.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 16, 2014)

Boss said:


> *To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.
> 
> A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.


Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples* is *a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.*
> ...



With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument. 

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws. 

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play. 

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life? 

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses. 

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You are comparing apples to camels. You are using the flawed logic of change is always good.

Also, not one is denying that women were once denied property rights, which was  a carry over from European practices. What the SSM marriage side is claiming is that these restrictions just sprung up overnight, which is clearly not the case. They merely codified precedent.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 16, 2014)

Boss said:


> This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?



I'm still waiting for you to square your "states rights" position on civil marriage with: 

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. 

You can't use the race dodge on those.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is this poster on another forum, who year after year, as this debate evolves and unfolds...always bribgs up the procreation element of the debate...and he always got lambasted, and his argument completely discredited in the process.

The obvious course would include what we do about marriages between infetile couples, or couples that simpy have no intention of having children, or couples that already had children from previous marriages or relationships.

I've never seen gay marriage equality opponents address that aspect with any type of conclusive cogent response.....


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



What have you got against reproductive privacy

Of course, reproductive privacy is bigoted since it only applies to opposite gender coupling. 

Right?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Oh, I might add that procreation between the members of the unit, as well as the anatomical difference between those participants make the demographic group far and away different than same sex couplings. 

K?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling. 

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth. 

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


This may be an obtuse concept...but humans are part of the human race, and Homosexuals are Homo Sapiens


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Still not understanding huh?

Is reproduction a requirement for state recognized marriages?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So are mass murders and plumbers. 

Ones called a contractor, the other a felon

Are you going to make a point?


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And this justifies eliminating their option to marry under the law....because??...........why?.........


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Why do states refuse to marry fathers to daughters?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Cause they ain't even closely related. 

Why can't attorneys do brain surgery.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I've made it, and you continue to miss it.

Who do murders, plumbers, or contractors have to do with the prohibition of gay marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



I think you meant what, not who. 

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society. 

By the way, you brought it up. 

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 16, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 "The moral controversy is never going away"?.......the moral controversy about inter-racial marriges went away. Why not same sex marriages as well?


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.


----------



## Broncho4 (Oct 16, 2014)

The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.


----------



## Broncho4 (Oct 16, 2014)

TheOldSchool:  The word regulated in the 2nd amendment refers to the mechanism for proper functioning.  As in, a well regulated engine is necessary for the performance of an automobile.  That does not imply that regulation should be placed on it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



I'd rephrase that since gays ARE civilly married and have been doing so in the US for a decade.


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> "The moral controversy is never going away"?.......the moral controversy about inter-racial marriges went away. Why not same sex marriages as well?



Because it's not the same thing, as you've repeatedly been told. The long hard fight against racial discrimination is actually religiously rooted. Quaker ministers began the abolition movement and a baptist minister led the Civil Rights movement. Discrimination on basis of race has been largely what the Bible details as the struggle for Christians and Jews. While homosexuality is an abomination.


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?
> ...



Well I realize that some liberals think states rights ought never exist in any form, but since that is how the Constitution established our nation, we're going to stick with the 10th Amendment and the fact that states do retain power in our system. 

Does the federal government issue marriage licenses? No. It is something authorized by the state, not the federal government. It is a state function, a state right.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 16, 2014)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...





toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



It would indeed be refreshing to get this out of the weeds.

A good start would be to agree that there are two distinct demographic groups, very different from each other within this discussion.

One group, same sex couples cannot procreate within the couple. This is an absolute truth.  Any and all offspring created by these couples must be created by using material provided by an outside source.

These couples have no need for birth control when interacting with each other, nor do they have to worry about the side effect of, or the long term health problems certain forms of birth control can cause. This is a considerable economic and health benefit to the same sex couple.

The lack of ability to procreate within the coupling has nothing to do with age, disability, fear or possible economic damage to the unit.

The second group, opposite sex couples must be concerned about procreation. Their interaction will often create a pregnancy. This pregnancy can cause health complications including death. Expensive steps most often times are required to not procreate in this group. Certain birth control methods have both immediate and long term health consequences. Others involve surgery. None of this applies to same sex couplings.

Should these couples find it difficult or impossible to procreate it is always due to injury, disability, age, fear of physical damage or economic damage to the unit.

The dynamics of these two groups, in this, the most basic need of success of the species, could not be more different.

How's that for a start


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 16, 2014)

Boss said:


> With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race.


See this is the beauty of having court rulings as a matter of historical record.  You get to go back,a and quote them directly:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'...."
Just so we're clear, that is not a commentary on *race*.  That is a commentary on * marriage*.  The ruling of _Loving v Virginia_ was not limited to just questions of racial inequality, as much as you might with is was.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


In other words, one group is gay, and the other isn't.  That is what you are trying to justify singling out, right?  I don't know why you don't just fly your bigot flag high.  Why does the lack of the ability to procreate only matter for the homosexual couples?  Is procreation important, or is heterosexual important?   Which is the part that matters?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race.
> ...



And the beauty of having historical records is that you can actually find facts. 

Fact, prior to the ruling there were never a state sponsored same sex marriage. It's obvious then that the justices ruled that any such right existed for any male to marry any female. 

That applies to gay as well as straights. Any male, gay or straight can marry any female, gay or straight.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Gays don't have to marry same sex
> 
> But nice try
> 
> We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle


So, you think gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, if they want to access the benefits of marriage?  That is your position?  And, by "pretend to be heterosexual", I mean marry someone of the opposite sex.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


First of all, that's not true.  In fact, in several different States - notably California, and Hawaii - states *were* recognizing same sex marriages beginning in 1978, continuing right up until 1993, when you religious zealots caught wind of what was going on, shat yourselves, and ran off to your respective state legislators to "put a stop to that shit" in 31 different states.

Thanks for clarifying for everyone that not only are you ignorant of Constitution Law, but you're also ignorant of History.


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 16, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


its not a "slippery slope" it just should be. who i enter into a contract with shouldnt be your concern,


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 16, 2014)

Ravi said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


they basically are...and using " new laws" is weak.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 16, 2014)

Broncho4 said:


> The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.


So....you are saying_ Loving v Virginia_ is an invalid ruling?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Here's a story for you:
_
After the end of WWII in Europe, in Occupied Berlin, an American soldier and a Soviet soldier met for drinks in a bar.   They got to talking about their own countries and the American bragged, "In the United States we have Freedom of Speech.  I can call President Truman an S.O.B. and I won't get in trouble."   The Soviet soldier replied, "In Soviet Russia we too have Freedom of Speech.  I too can call President Truman an S.O.B. and not get in trouble.  Same Freedom of Speech."_


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 16, 2014)

Broncho4 said:


> The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.


The Federal courts do have the authority to invalidate state measures that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, such as measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 16, 2014)

Broncho4 said:


> TheOldSchool:  The word regulated in the 2nd amendment refers to the mechanism for proper functioning.  As in, a well regulated engine is necessary for the performance of an automobile.  That does not imply that regulation should be placed on it.


The Federal courts also have the authority to invalidate state measures that violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, something you and others on the right take no issue with, as in such cases you have nothing but contempt for the 'will of the people.'

Conservatives can't have it both ways.


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel. 

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights. 

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Fun story

Care to comment on my presentation on the differences between the two demographic groups.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Gays don't have to marry same sex
> ...



No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> > The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.
> ...



Only when misrepresenting the history behind it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The presentation that means absolutely nothing to this discussion?  That one?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Broncho4 said:
> ...



Not to worry, Pop: every time you try to misrepresent it, we correct you.

We always will correct you.  Not to worry.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



^^^ little guy claims to be ignoring me


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Begin then knucklehead. 

Oh, that's right

You can't.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So...your way or the highway, eh?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Ones a interstate highway the other a dirt road.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 16, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Just like a baker and a gay couple?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Oh snap

How does that baker refusing service to that couple effect your relationship?


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 16, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


sigh....im not getting into that punt


----------



## martybegan (Oct 16, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Because you just got served Yo.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> No, they can stay single if they wish
> 
> That's the beauty of freedom


Okay, lemme try that question again, emphasizing the part you seemed to have missed.  Actually, I know you didn't miss it.  You just don't want to answer the question honestly, because you are well aware of the shitstorm you would open with an honest answer.  But, I'm gonna keep asking the question until you either answer it honestly, or admit your position is bullshit:

So, you think *in order to to access the benefits come with being married*, gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, and marry someone of the opposite sex, correct?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 16, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Oh!  It's more than that.  I want him to say that he thinks they should marry people of the opposite sex.  Because, the logical conclusion of that behaviour is gonna be all kinds of fun, which is why he won't actually say that.


----------



## Truman123 (Oct 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.



I've never understood why polygamy was outlawed.


Doesn't it fall under freedom of religion?


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


more punting


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



How is it punting when I don't have an issue with gay marriage as long as it is passed via State legislative action? The basic concept of Gay Marriage is not an issue for me, what is an issue is the use of courts to enforce some made up right on the individual States that don't want it.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So even though in that case separate but equal would actually BE separate but equal, unlike segregation as applied in the american south, you would not accept it. Over a single word, even if the contracts were identical. 

As I have stated before, this just shows that this isn't just about equality, its about acceptance.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That's right we won't. We would have a while back...in a lot of places we did. It wasn't gays shutting the door on civil unions. 

No, it shows that it is exactly about equality. We don't give a flying fuck what it's called, it just has to be the same. YOU care about what it's called so the onus is on YOU to change it...for everyone.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

Polygamy is not analogous to marriage equality for couples.  Marty, nobody cares if you accept it.  Your feelings don't matter.  The law does.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Again, acceptance over equality. Deep down you know it pisses of religious folk of a certain ilk, and that gives you the warm and fuzzies.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Polygamy is not analogous to marriage equality for couples.  Marty, nobody cares if you accept it.  Your feelings don't matter.  The law does.



It has more precedent to be allowed than SSM ever had.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Wrong. Equality first and last. YOU don't want gays to be "married", only straights. I want us both to be whatever, either married or civil unioned. You want gays to be separate. 

Since civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage, it shouldn't piss off the religious. Does it piss them off when atheist get married? Do they get pissed off when swingers marry? Why should they give MORE of a fuck when gays get civilly married? 

Churches are and will always be free to discriminate if they want to. I have no desire to change that through anything other than public opinion.


----------



## Broncho4 (Oct 17, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool:  The word regulated in the 2nd amendment refers to the mechanism for proper functioning.  As in, a well regulated engine is necessary for the performance of an automobile.  That does not imply that regulation should be placed on it.
> ...



Was this meant as a reply to another post?  I have no idea what your statement has to do with the one I posted.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Bullshit. you start with punishing religious people for their beliefs, and you will move on to the organizations sooner or later. 

Again, if a state wants to change the marriage contract via legislation I have no issue with it, if they don't they should be able to define it how they want to. 

Again, acceptance. You keep trying to deny it, but it comes through more and more the more you post.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



No Marty, true shit. We want to be civilly married. We have always had equal access to religious marriage, it is not the issue. It is not us that has a problem with the religious, it is the religious that have a problem with us. Civil unions for all would be perfectly acceptable to gays and lesbians. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays is not. 

I don't care what you have a problem with, I'm glad I live in a county where we can address our grievances through the judicial system.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > No, they can stay single if they wish
> ...



If they don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex. 

Their choice


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Go for it czeesehead


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Equality through biology can't be obtained, so try as you may to circumvent it, the law can't change that


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You want logic?

Males having sex with females is logical.  

Your going to argue logic?

Good lord


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Still looking for that acceptance you so desperately desire. Its almost Freudian.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 17, 2014)

The gays should thank God that they didn't have two daddies instead of a heterosexual couple. If two dads could produce offspring then the union would be equal.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Repeating a lie does not make it true. We want equality. If you get civil unions, they're fine for us. If you get civil marriage, that's what we get too. Why do you insist we meed to create something separate for gays?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And they can still claim all of the benefits that come with being married? What must gays do to claim those benefits?  I told you I'm not going to quit asking his question until you answer it.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Says who?  And it you are going to get into that whole procreation thing again, then I will ask you this:  is procreation the only purpose of sex?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



That's acceptance, not equality.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases. 

*You didn't propose shit.*
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage. 

*What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.*
I didn't propose a _"separate but equal"_ solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the fucking problem. 

*but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...*
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage. 

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 17, 2014)

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.



What they want is a social issue they can polarize the electorate with because they believe this wins elections for liberals. Having the issue is more important than resolving the issue. You can't get people all worked up into an emotional frenzy over a resolved problem.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Singles don't get those benefits

Clear enough fella


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Should it be

I think your showing how delusional you are. 

Singles can have all the pleasurable types of sex they want


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Boss said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.
> ...



They can train people to be enablers by doing so. 

It's a beautiful plan, don't ya think?

The delusioned harvesting enablers.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You do realize that only one of the affected demographic groups have to concern themselves with sex induced pregnancy right?

No same sex coupling had ever caused a pregnancy. 

I wonder if stating the obvious makes me a bigot?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.



No, it is not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop continues to be unhappy because he can't change what he doesn't like.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Polygamy is not analogous to marriage equality for couples.  Marty, nobody cares if you accept it.  Your feelings don't matter.  The law does.


 Correct, 'polygamy' is a red herring, having nothing to do with marriage.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So, it is your position that if homosexuals want to access the benefits of being married, they should marry people of the opposite sex, correct?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You do realize that *no* demographic has to be concerned about sex induced pregnancy, right?  Because pregnancy is not the goal, or purpose of sex.



Pop23 said:


> No same sex coupling had ever caused a pregnancy.
> 
> I wonder if stating the obvious makes me a bigot?


  No.  Your unreasonable hatred of homosexuals is what makes you a bigot.  Your overwhelming need to *justify* that hatred that causes you to jump through through these logistical hoops suggests that you are *ashamed* of your bigotry, and are trying to find a way to make it not bigotry.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



If I were a bigot I might be ashamed of that. I stand hand in hand with biology on this one though

And you remain delusional


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Go with that Mr. Spock


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married. 

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Only if you're delusional enough  insist that procreation is the sole, or even primary, goal of and purpose of sex.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Its your desire to be accepted by people who don't want to accept you, or barring that to make them such pariahs that you get some smug satisfaction over fucking them over.

Your posts imply this, shoutingly imply it.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes, they are. Anyone that opposes marriage equality IS a bigot. States that intentionally wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws are bigoted laws based SOLELY on animus.

Go ahead and get civil unions for all passed. We aren't going to wait for that though, but I do applaud your efforts. 

Fighting for our equality punishes no one. My civil marriage punished no one.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What do you know?  The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection. 

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.



It is no where near as against the "will of the people" as interracial marriage was when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving. Fewer than 20% supported that "redefining" of marriage. 

Civil rights aren't a popularity contest...thank goodness.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Stunning (see pathetic) response. Why do you wish to require gays have something different? (Other than animus)


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And you are not recognizing a muslim person's religious beliefs that your lifestyle is sinful.  Why does your religious beliefs trump that muslim's?   Or a Jew's?   Or a Hindu's?   Or a pagan's?  Or an atheist's?

And what makes ANY religious person's beliefs trump the Constitution and secular law?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

Marty, maybe you can explain how you *believe* my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So all those atheist marrying is disrespectful to the religious...obviously we must only have civil unions for them, right?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



These people in general are not going to government agencies to force others to accept or go out of business. You assholes are.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



They aren't the ones trying to force bakers to bake cakes against their will. They are however using the courts to be dicks to people of faith, so I guess you assholes share that in common.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Marty, maybe you can explain how you *believe* my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.



Bakers, cakes, force, government. gays.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Why do you seek to force people to accept your lifestyle or go out of business?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

'hand in hand with biology" does not excuse one from Pop's type of bigotry, the bigot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Since your silly libertarian views are never going to be part of our society, your question is meaningless.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



They were what founded our society, until assholes like you figured out a way to fuck over people using the courts and government.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear. 

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear. 

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> 'hand in hand with biology" does not excuse one from Pop's type of bigotry, the bigot.



Freakin funny


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Marty, maybe you can explain how you *believe* my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.



It won't dummy


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Lawyers are professionals, as are basketball players, none are allowed to perform brain surgery.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Pervert, a father should never marry his daughter


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Not at all.  Most libertarians, like you, are fairly poor at socializing, so you enter fields to maximize your skills and minimize your weaknesses,, which is smart in a vastly interconnect global community.

Folks like you have to adapt, not the society as a whole to you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

Yet another fallacy of false comparison by Pop.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Socialization and not wanting government to fuck you over are two unrelated items. Being a sucker for oligarchs, however, seems to be a progressive trait.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

Whatever, Marty.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yet another fallacy of false comparison by Pop.



Thanks for ignoring me. Yet another delusional post by delusional boy


----------



## martybegan (Oct 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Whatever, Marty.



Congrats on giving up, now, as for the other thread, get your ass back there and tell me what I lied about.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What I asked had nothing to do with biology, dumdass.  It's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no:  Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear.  I am not asking if you think *anyone* should be forced to marry against their will.  I am asking what *specific* *requirements* are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage.  Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer.  Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead.  Equivocate again, coward.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms. 

Marriage should be between a male and a female. 

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject. 

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You can call me whatever you want.  I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married.  That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes.  So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Oh, so you're back to PA laws...that have nothing to do with marriage equality. 

Can't stay on topic? You do realize all those groups are protected by PA laws, don't you?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Marty, maybe you can explain how you *believe* my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.
> ...



Marriage, not related. There was no civil marriage for gays in the states where the PA cases were brought. Argument fail.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Marty, maybe you can explain how you *believe* my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.
> ...



According to Marty it does, bigot.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Boss said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.
> ...


We have that.  You guys handed it to us.  in fact, we have several:

Women - "fetal personhood", and the end run around women's right to vote, pay equality, the delay in re-authorizing the "Violence Against Women" act.
Latino - Republican refusal to move on immigration reform
Homosexuals  - Marriage Equality.
Everyone - Minimum Wage increase.

Progressives don't need to "create" polarizing issues.  You guys are doing a great job of that, all on your own.  Thanks for that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Are you gonna want me to pinky swear?

God you are pathetic

Swear him in judge!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I know right

The least he could do is read me my rights first!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It is a simple question to Pop that he keeps refusing to answer with a clear statement: Should homosexuals who want to get married  be required to marry people of the opposite sex?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Case in point.  The cowardly bigot refuses to simply answer the question, because he knows that answering honestly proves that he has no respect for the institution of marriage.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Um, no.

He has answered it over and over, and in no way is it bigoted. It is in fact the utmost in respect for the institution of marriage.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, he didn't he equivocated over, and over, so that he could not be held accountable for his position.  There's a difference.
See, I believe that a homosexual should *not* be required to marry someone of the opposite sex.

See, *that* is answering the question.  Pop pointedly refused to answer the direct question.  He *implied* the answer.  He *danced around* the answer.  He allowed me to *assume* the answer.  But, he never actually answered.  All he has to do is answer the question as plainly as I just did.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Listen F. Lee Bailey jr. 

Play your little games all you want. This is how you roll, I don't care!

Gays could always marry

Males marry females

You don't get CLEARER then that!


----------



## LittleNipper (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Homosexuals should not marry. They want children. They should not be allowed to procreate, if such are unwilling to engage in marriage to the opposite sex. Homosexuals may choose to live together, but their union is not a marriage. Should a man be allowed to marry his dog? If the dog is not hurt, what is wrong with it? It is an abomination! And most all people (PRESENTLY) are still in full agreement that such is impossible to allow. It is obvious that an man can certainly get as much pleasure out of a sexual relationship with his dog as he can with another man. But pleasure is not the real reason for marriage. Marriage is the establishment of a family unit --- Husband/Wife ------ Father/Mother/Child. What homosexuality practices upon is dysfunctional. It is the enlistment of the unnatural in an attempt to give such credibility to something that is not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop has said or implied many times that believes that those who are same sex oriented should marry straights if they want to marry.

He makes it murky with comments about biology, procreation, and so forth, but, yes, Pop believes LGBT must marry straights if they wish to marry.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 17, 2014)

Little Nipper just destroyed the rationale for adoptions.  Idiotic.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Okay.  Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question.  Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

LittleNipper said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


You're right, but not because of any moral abhorrence, contrary to your wish that it were otherwise.  Most of us have a problem with marrying your dog, because your dog cannot give consent.  Most of us see that whole "consent" thing as being pretty important, because it is one of the basic requirements for "doing no harm".  You see, that's what we care about.  The Law is to protect *me* from you doing *me* harm.  Anything else is moralistic bullshit.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Okay.  Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.
> 
> So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.
> 
> Next question.  Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?



Forced?  What are you smoking? 

You are in way over your head, why not just stop now?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.
> ...


And this is why I wanted a straight answer to a straight question.  Because now you are claiming, for him, that he does not hold the position that you insist he already claimed to hold.

If a homosexual wants to get married should they be required to marry someone on the opposite sex: yes, or no?


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



And here we have the brazen honesty of a liberal revealed. The entire liberal movement is not about resolving problems for people, it's about political power through emotive issues they can divide people over. Here we have a liberal admitting that is the case and thanking me for creating these wedge issues.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually, it *is * about resolving problems for the people.  It is about actually *doing something* to help people.  You know that little thing that you guys spent the last 6 years not doing - *governing*?  It's not our fault that you spent six years doing nothing but trying to repeal Obamacare.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop has said or implied many times that believes that those who are same sex oriented should marry straights if they want to marry.
> 
> He makes it murky with comments about biology, procreation, and so forth, but, yes, Pop believes LGBT must marry straights if they wish to marry.



The only thing murky is whether your ignoring me or not?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Funny, he wants a "straight" answer

You simply can't make this shit up!

I answer the way I want too

I also won't:

A. Bark like a dog for you
2. Cluck like a chicken for you
Or
D. Oink like a pig for you (which I understand is a party game for some with your delusion. Cue dueling banjo's)

So move along lil fella

Times a wasting


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Being an enabler rarely helps


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.
> ...



What he said^^^^^^

Czeeseheads delusions are incredibly entertaining


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



First of all, I am not one of "you guys" and I don't know of anyone who has tried repealing Obamacare besides Ted Cruz. 

No, it's not about resolving problems or you would embrace my solution and we could work together to resolve the issue. Instead, you tell me you are going to continue to fight. Okay, so maybe when you're faced with having to repeal a Constitutional amendment that says marriage is only between a man and woman, you will regret not having worked with me for a resolution to the problem? 

I don't really give two shits what you do, to be honest. I presented a reasonable solution that resolves the issue for all parties involved, and if you don't want to accept that and work towards resolving the issue, that's on you. If you had rather have a long protracted fight that you're not going to ever win, then... my apologies to all the gay couples out there, I tried to be reasonable and solve the problem, and ass clowns like this messed that up for ya. Oh fucking well.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yeah...that's what I thought.  A coward who does not have the courage to admit his own positions.  I am done with you.  Welcome to ignore land.  Buh bye.  I'll check in in a few months to see if you have grown some balls by then.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Really?  So you *don't* know about the 52 votes in the House of Representatives to repeals Obamacare.  Trust me when I tell you that Ted Cruz ws most assuredly *not* the only vote in favvor of that stupidity.  I can get you the congressional vote rolls, if you need reminding.



Boss said:


> No, it's not about resolving problems or you would embrace my solution and we could work together to resolve the issue. Instead, you tell me you are going to continue to fight. Okay, so maybe when you're faced with having to repeal a Constitutional amendment that says marriage is only between a man and woman, you will regret not having worked with me for a resolution to the problem?


Actually, I've said several times that I would be all in favor of doing away with the concept of marriage outside of church, for everyone.  I have said repeatedly, good luck getting *Christians* to give up on their government recognized marriages.  But, hey!  If you can pull that off, I'm all with ya.  I'm just not willing to have one kind of contract recognized for heterosexuals, and a different kind recognized for homosexuals.



Boss said:


> I don't really give two shits what you do, to be honest. I presented a reasonable solution that resolves the issue for all parties involved, and if you don't want to accept that and work towards resolving the issue, that's on you. If you had rather have a long protracted fight that you're not going to ever win, then... my apologies to all the gay couples out there, I tried to be reasonable and solve the problem, and ass clowns like this messed that up for ya. Oh fucking well.


See previous response.  And by the way, I don't see any actual Republican politicians making that suggestion.  I only point that out because, your contention was that *Liberals* "created" this "polarizing" issue.  However, the fact is, it wasn't even an issue until *Conservatives* started shitting themselves that "those damned fags are daring to get married!"  In other words, *Conservatives* created this issue.

And, by the way, you *are* "those guys".  When you start throwing accusations at "liberals", you self-identify, by your position, the opposition, which makes you "those guys".  By identifying with "those guys", you accept responsibility for the actions "those guys" take in your name.  If you don't want to be "those guys", then don't identifying with them.  Guess what?  You "lump me" in with Progressives, I'm not gonna flinch.  I side with Progressives, so, I expect to be "lumped in" with them.


----------



## LittleNipper (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity. It exalts materialism with abandon, and casts aside spirituality to embrace temporal pleasure --- void of the complication of a pregnancy. Sexual experimentation leads to fornication. At its worst, self gratification leads to encounters with both male and female partners. Homosexuality can begin with extramarital adulterous encounters. Pornography, self gratification, fornication, adultery ---- lead down the corruption ladder. The younger person can be initiated by a "mature" sexual predator with promises of care and friendship. The "victim" can harbor feeling of rejection by the opposite sex, or covets the seeming prowess of others of his sex -- seeing sexual humiliation/conquest as a power play game. The reality is that none of this is the ideal of marriage. It reflects the total opposite of what God intended for Adam and Eve.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 17, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



The only "position" you know is on your knees. 

If you don't know mine you are a.......


Wait for it


Wait for it




MORON


----------



## Skylar (Oct 17, 2014)

> Homosexuals should not marry.



Sure they should! And more importantly....are.



> They want children.



Some of them. In my experience gays and lesbians make better parents on average than straights. Nothing intrinsic....there just aren't many accidents with gay and lesbian conceptions. The children are almost always coming into homes where they are wanted and well prepared for. 

For straight couples, its a bit of a mixed bag. Lots of homes where parents are well prepared, emotionally and financially. And enough dumb teenagers getting knocking up or getting some girl pregnant to man a fleet of battleships. Women getting pregnant to keep men, men refusing to wear condoms because they think it feels better. And boatloads of alcohol...that I swear was invented to keep our species reproducing. 



> They should not be allowed to procreate, if such are unwilling to engage in marriage to the opposite sex.



Of course they should. And again....are!



> Homosexuals may choose to live together, but their union is not a marriage.



The law says otherwise. You have every right to disagree. And the gays have every right to not give a fiddler's fuck what you think as they're handed their marriage licenses.

Sounds like a win-win to me.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 17, 2014)

> Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity.



You seem to be claiming some pretty specific knowledge of gay sex. Something you want to tell us?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 17, 2014)

LittleNipper said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Okay...I'm not even bothering with any kind of actual response to your blathering other than to let you know that I am an atheist.  So, whenever you start a *legal* argument with "debauchery", "lustful and dark desires of the flesh", "eternity", "God", and "Adam and Eve", you have already wasted your breath.  First, you are appealing to an authority I do not recognize.  Second, and more importantly, the Constitution forbids, thankfully, anyone from enacting laws based on their religious beliefs.

Moving on...


----------



## Boss (Oct 18, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Really?  So you *don't* know about the 52 votes in the House of Representatives to repeals Obamacare.  Trust me when I tell you that Ted Cruz ws most assuredly *not* the only vote in favvor of that stupidity.  I can get you the congressional vote rolls, if you need reminding.



I know Obamacare has never been in danger of being repealed by the current GOP in congress.



> Actually, I've said several times that I would be all in favor of doing away with the concept of marriage outside of church, for everyone.  I have said repeatedly, good luck getting *Christians* to give up on their government recognized marriages.  But, hey!  If you can pull that off, I'm all with ya.  I'm just not willing to have one kind of contract recognized for heterosexuals, and a different kind recognized for homosexuals.



My solution doesn't demand Christians give up anything. Your fears of one kind of deal for homos and another for heteros is unwarranted because of the Constitution. The government can't even demand you reveal the nature of your sexuality. How could they decide which kind of contract? 

Now you say... "good luck getting Christians on board with that!" But Christians certainly aren't on board with what you propose, and never will be. My solution allows religion to keep religious sanctity of traditional marriage. That's what they get out of the deal, which is what they claim to want. 

Will every Christian embrace my solution? No, just like every gay marriage advocate won't accept it. Some people had rather keep the issue alive for political reasons as opposed to resolving the problem. My solution resolves the problem forever, and gives all sides what they claim to want.



> See previous response.  And by the way, I don't see any actual Republican politicians making that suggestion.  I only point that out because, your contention was that *Liberals* "created" this "polarizing" issue.  However, the fact is, it wasn't even an issue until *Conservatives* started shitting themselves that "those damned fags are daring to get married!"  In other words, *Conservatives* created this issue.
> 
> And, by the way, you *are* "those guys".  When you start throwing accusations at "liberals", you self-identify, by your position, the opposition, which makes you "those guys".  By identifying with "those guys", you accept responsibility for the actions "those guys" take in your name.  If you don't want to be "those guys", then don't identifying with them.  Guess what?  You "lump me" in with Progressives, I'm not gonna flinch.  I side with Progressives, so, I expect to be "lumped in" with them.



Liberals DID create this polarizing issue, just like all other polarizing social issues. It's what they do. When I said I wasn't "one of them" I was referring to Republicans. I am a Conservative and totally opposed to Liberalism. I sometimes vote Republican, but I've also voted for Democrats, Libertarians and Independents. You would be ill-advised to ever lump me in with any group. I'm a free-thinking maverick who doesn't tow the party line like you and your liberal religionists. I'm also not responsible for what politicians do "in my name."


----------



## LittleNipper (Oct 18, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity. It exalts materialism with abandon, and casts aside spirituality to embrace temporal pleasure --- void of the complication of a pregnancy. Sexual experimentation leads to fornication. At its worst, self gratification leads to encounters with both male and female partners. Homosexuality can begin with extramarital adulterous encounters. Pornography, self gratification, fornication, adultery ---- lead down the corruption ladder. The younger person can be initiated by a "mature" sexual predator with promises of care and friendship. The "victim" can harbor feeling of rejection by the opposite sex, or covets the seeming prowess of others of his sex -- seeing sexual humiliation/conquest as a power play game. The reality is that none of this is the ideal of marriage. It reflects the total opposite of what God intended for Adam and Eve.
> ...


The logic then (since you are an atheist) is that marriage has nothing to do with you. Don't waste the time of everyone trying to persuade them that "gay marriage" is ok. Marriage is only legitimate if there exists a God, otherwise it serves no purpose since it would only be a show. The Constitution forbids the Federal Government from making laws that get in the way of religions freedom and not to free anyone from religious conflict/discussion/confrontations. This is where our government has gotten off track. They are trying to teach people what to think, because they actually are beginning to believe that what they believe doesn't constitute religious fervor ---but "political" values. And this is why a Mayor in Houston Texas sees nothing wrong with seeking transcripts of sermons from clergy he feels are "Anti Gay." But would think it horrible if a Conservative wanted the transcripts of clergy who promoted "gay marriage," or if clergy sought transcripts of behind door meetings the mayor held on public property.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 18, 2014)

LittleNipper said:


> The Constitution forbids the Federal Government from making laws that get in the way of religions freedom...




So you think the Federal government should have always recognized same-sex marriages that were conducted in Churches right?  You support the equal treatment of those couples Religious Marriages?


>>>>


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 20, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 20, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact. 

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



There were zero same sex marriages prior to Loving. The court would never have considered that in their findings.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 20, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Irrelevant to the point. Loving still declared marriage a fundamental human right. It extended only to interracial marriage because that was the question at hand. If you understood how the courts function, this wouldn't be so hard to comprehend.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 20, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 20, 2014)

LittleNipper said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Uh...you are confusing the *civil contract of marriage,* which has _everything_ to do with me, and my partner, and the *religious ritual of a religious wedding,* which I don't think homosexuals are demanding.

The rest of your post is just more moralistic tripe borne out of your belief in your particular myth.  You are, of course, entitled to your moralistic views.  I will simply not allow you to try to legislate my personal behavior based on those views.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 20, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



The court could not have ruled on something non existent at the time. 

Your argument is simply goofy


----------



## LittleNipper (Oct 20, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 20, 2014)

“Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity.”

As already noted, this is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – indeed, this is an example of the ignorance and hate that the Constitution prohibits from being codified.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 20, 2014)

LittleNipper said: ↑

"The Constitution forbids the Federal Government from making laws that get in the way of religions freedom..."

This doesn't make any sense.

The issue concerns state measures that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, having nothing to do with Federal laws, laws that don't even exist.


----------



## TrueMan (Oct 21, 2014)

People who engage in sexual activity with the same sex are more at risk to catch STD, HIV or AIDS than those who are straight. And not only because of these things I won't ever support homosexual marriages.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 21, 2014)

TrueMan said:


> People who engage in sexual activity with the same sex are more at risk to catch STD, HIV or AIDS than those who are straight. And not only because of these things I won't ever support homosexual marriages.



People who engage in risky unprotected sex are more at risk for STDs, including HIV. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it, bigot.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 21, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity.”
> 
> As already noted, this is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – indeed, this is an example of the ignorance and hate that the Constitution prohibits from being codified.



Geez Clayton, then you can't argue against father/daughter marriage. 

Reality fails you


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2014)

Whatever you call it, Homosexual marriage is here to stay

Give it two years (or less) and every state will allow it

The sun will still rise, our nation will not crumble, God will not smite us and most will ask........What was all the fuss about?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 21, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Whatever you call it, Homosexual marriage is here to stay
> 
> Give it two years (or less) and every state will allow it
> 
> The sun will still rise, our nation will not crumble, God will not smite us and most will ask........What was all the fuss about?



Bah, societies have tried it before, always fails. 

Trying to do with law, what biology won't is crazy.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 21, 2014)

TrueMan said:


> People who engage in sexual activity with the same sex are more at risk to catch STD, HIV or AIDS than those who are straight. And not only because of these things I won't ever support homosexual marriages.




You realize that support for long term monogamous relationships like Civil Marriage would (in the long term) reduce exposer to such risks.  Logic says that if long-term monogamous relationships are supported, then it's kind of hard to catch an STD if neither partner had one to begin with.

By denying Civil Marriage and the societal pressure you would be, IMHO, be maintaining a system that INCREASES STD transmission. 

It isn't "same-sex" acts that create more of a risk for STDs as the same "acts" are performed by heterosexuals as well, it is unsafe sex with multiple partners that increases the risk.



>>>>


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 23, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Use _your _brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 23, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Marriage was existent at the time of loving. The court ruled that marriage was a fundamental right, not merely a privilege. Is this seriously news to you?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 23, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Infertile couples have had children you dumblefuck

No double standard at all

And you remain delusional


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 23, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Only marriage between men and women. 

You fail that rationality test again


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 23, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Infertile couples have never had children. Methinks you don't understand what infertile means


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 23, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


When did I ever say same-sex marriages were legal at the time of Loving? The point is that Loving declared marriage a fundamental right. Loving had nothing to do with same-sex couples getting married, so of course it did not legalize same-sex marriage. You're clueless.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 23, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



They could not rule on something that did not exist and was not a part of the case.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 23, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Because infertile can become fertile through medical procedures is something impossible with same sex couples. 

Your jealousy is delicious.


----------



## Boss (Oct 23, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



*If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.*

This is where the bait and switch is pulled, you are claiming that two homosexuals of the same gender forming a partnership together is "marriage" and it's simply NOT marriage. If I want to fuck children, I can't simply claim that marriage is the union of an adult and child and my fundamental constitutional rights are being violated! You can't make things that AREN'T marriage BE marriage, so you can legitimately make the claim of rights. If we can do that, then ANYTHING can become "marriage" and has to be upheld under Equal Protection. 

Not a single homosexual American has ever been denied the right to obtain a marriage license, but marriage licenses are only available to a man and woman wishing to join in matrimony. There is no comparison with Loving, or the issue of interracial marriages because that was a case where the fundamental right to marry was being denied on the basis of race. This is where the fundamental right to marry is NOT being denied, you just want to call something marriage that isn't marriage. 

Again... I have laid out a proposal which resolves this issue forever, and to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. Remove government (and courts) from the role of determining for the people what constitutes "marriage" in ANY case. Leave that to the people, society and churches where it belongs. From the formal governmental standpoint, recognize civil union partnerships only. Party A and Party B... any two consenting adults, no delineation on sexual relationship, gender, family relation or anything else other than legal age of consent and no other existing active contracts. The old "marriage licenses" would effectively become CU contracts, all states would begin issuing only CU contracts, churches could do whatever they please, people could call "marriage" whatever they want, gay couples could obtain all their benefits, religious people get to keep sanctity of traditional marriage... and we fucking END this issue FOREVER! 

Can ANYONE tell me why this is not acceptable? Not reasonable? Not doable?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 23, 2014)

Boss said:

“Not a single homosexual American has ever been denied the right to obtain a marriage license, but marriage licenses are only available to a man and woman wishing to join in matrimony. There is no comparison with Loving, or the issue of interracial marriages because that was a case where the fundamental right to marry was being denied on the basis of race. This is where the fundamental right to marry is NOT being denied, you just want to call something marriage that isn't marriage.”


Incorrect.

_Loving_ is in fact on point with regard to the right to decide whom to marry:

'[T]he question as stated in _Loving_, and as characterized in subsequent opinions, was not whether there is a deeply rooted tradition of interracial marriage, or whether interracial marriage is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty; the right at issue was “the freedom of choice to marry.” _Loving_, 388 U.S. at 12.' _Kitchen et al v. Herbert et al _

Just as _Loving _concerned the freedom of choice to marry, so too do the _Marriage Cases_ address the issue of the same freedom, whether that choice is to marry someone of another race or someone of the same sex, the same right protects citizens from state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 23, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Thank you for repeating what I just said. What did exist, however, was marriage. And Loving ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. They made that quite clear.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 23, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


False. Not all infertile couples can become fertile. Furthermore, an elderly woman will never be fertile again as she has stopped producing eggs. Yet they can still get married. You have a bigoted double standard to stand on, nothing more.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 23, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Same-sex marriage _is _marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> _Loving_ is in fact on point with regard to the right to decide whom to *marry*:



I highlighted a keyword there for you. *MARRY*.... not enter into a homosexual same-gender relationship and CALL it marriage. 

You also DO NOT have a right to decide WHO to marry, if you did, I would currently be married to Kate Upton. But since Kate has no idea who I am, hasn't given her consent to marry me, and is currently dating Justin Verlander, I cannot decide to marry her. But hey... maybe if we're going to claim that marriage is whatever the fuck we want it to be and we can marry anyone in the fuck we want to marry, and this is our fundamental right... maybe I _can_ marry Kate Upton? Hell, I'll even marry Justin too, I don't mind sharing! 

Loving was about MARRIAGE and if a black and white couple could marry. What you people are doing is calling something marriage that isn't marriage and claiming you have the right to do it. You simply don't have the right to change what marriage is to include whatever you please.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Same-sex marriage _is _marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.
> 
> The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.



You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice. 

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 24, 2014)

Boss said:

“This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do.”


Incorrect.

It's about the ignorance and hate exhibited by you and many others on the right, and your efforts to codify that ignorance and hate in violation of the Constitution.

You're at liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, you're at liberty to keep them out of your churches and private organizations, and you're at liberty to believe whatever you wish.

You are not at liberty, however, to seek to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than your animus toward a class of persons by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 24, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Same-sex marriage _is _marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.
> ...



 If you are truly looking for a solution that would please everybody, then why don't we continue to use the term marriage as the union of two people who love each other and share all the rights and responsibilities to their partners as every other married couple. If the bible thumpers want to come up with another word to describe what ever arrangement or ceremony their church condones, they are free to do that.   There....marriage equality with bible thumpers having their own separate designation. Problem solved.


----------



## Jacky Lawson (Oct 24, 2014)

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> It's not a slippery slope.


On what basis do you discriminate against two related men marrying? I thought you supported same-sex marriage, I must have misunderstood your posts.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 24, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



It's a *bigoted *double standard.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> “This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do.”
> 
> ...



No, it's not incorrect, it's spot on. My solution shows no indication of hate or disrespect toward anyone, to the contrary, it resolves the issue to the mutual satisfaction of all.... All but the REAL haters and bigots, which includes you, sir. 

I am at liberty to do whatever it takes to see to it that YOU don't get your way. I will do everything in my power to do so.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



You're giving me YOUR solution that would please YOU... not everybody. Then you are being totally disrespectful of the religious, calling them names and insinuating they should have to accept your solution. That's not a solution that pleases everybody, nor does it solve the problem. 

It does, however, prove the point that this isn't about a solution at all, it's about your hatred and bigotry toward the religious and their customs. That's why you are doing this, and it's as clear as day to anyone who bothers to read your vitriolic rants.


----------



## Boss (Oct 24, 2014)

Jacky Lawson said:


> Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.



No it's really not. There are already places in the country where polygamists are challenging the law and demanding their "rights" to 'marry' as many people as they please. If you talk to these pro-gay-marriage bigots long enough, they almost always admit they would have no problem with polygamy whatsoever. Give it 20 years and they will have no problem with child marriage or animal marriage because they have no sense of morality and no respect for those who do.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 24, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Until a same sex coupling creates a child, there can be no double standard. The standard is, they can't now, in the past, nor in the future. 

Your delusions are irritating.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 24, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



The only way you have an argument is to compare yourself to the disabled or the elderly. 

Too damn funny. You do realize that your delusions make that seem an appropriate argument. Right ?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 24, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Until procreation is a requirement for civil marriage, you're a pathetic bigot.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 27, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Same-sex marriage _is _marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.
> ...


Nope. I answered your question, you just didn't like the answer. 

As a gay man myself I couldn't care _more_. Your post is a flaming load of horse crap. _*Allowing gay couples to marry has no effect on you or anyone else who hates gays whatsoever.*_ The only people trying to cram anything down society's throat are people like you. You want everyone to fit into your own view of marriage and what it is. 

You don't want to give people the freedom to be who they actually are and marry who they actually want to love. Sorry, but nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yup. Pathetic _and _bigoted.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 27, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The only way you have an argument is to be a blatant hypocrite and apply a different standard to gay couples for no reason other than that they are gay. But that isn't news to anyone who has read your hateful, bigoted, ignorant posts on this forum.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 27, 2014)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You think your solution pleases everybody? Wow. Where did this omniscience of yours come from? Did God come to you in a dream?

Religious people are only a problem when they use the force of government to deny others fundamental human rights and equal protection of the laws. You and your irk have totally brought this upon yourselves.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 27, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


Except elderly and other forms of infertile heterosexual coupling cannot create a child, ever, yet they can still get married. AKA a double standard. I'm glad my *logic *irritates you.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 27, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



I understand your desire to educate and inform, but you gotta accept that isn't going to happen here. Unless someone on fox, or a preacher tells them to believe something, no amount of logic will get through. I come here to laugh at the ridiculous things said, or perhaps poke some of them with a stick, but that is all this board will ever be good for.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 27, 2014)

It's not marriage equality.  It's marriage extinction.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 27, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Oh I know I will never get through to him. I just enjoy repeatedly pointing out how irrational he is.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 27, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It's not marriage equality.  It's marriage extinction.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 27, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It's not marriage equality.  It's marriage extinction.




So you think that if a gay couple get married that will somehow hurt or do away with your marriage? Must be a bad marriage if that's all it takes to destroy it.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 27, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It's not marriage equality.  It's marriage extinction.
> ...



Don't mind the resident drama queen. The world is ending and you can't convince her otherwise.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 27, 2014)




----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Yep. According to her, we're already dead of Ebola.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 27, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It's not marriage equality.  It's marriage extinction.



I have no doubt that all the backward, uneducated bigots of days gone by said exactly the same thing. 

But -


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 27, 2014)

Why is it that its always the RWs who are against equality?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 27, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that. 

Unless of course it is the Conservatives suing business's.

If people of faith weren't being dicks to homosexuals, then this whole issue would be moot.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 27, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Marriage should be between a male and a female.
> .



Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 27, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Until then people had the liberty to fuck over people using guns and knives.....


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 27, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage should be between a male and a female.
> ...



And in most states it is now


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 27, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.
> 
> Conservatives hate that


Actually, you wouldn't know a conservative if you gagged on his cock.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 27, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.


Why two? Who are you to decide? Fags never say, except that "it's traditional".


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.
> ...


Man/woman is traditional.  So using LGBT logic, polygamy is legal because tradition is moot.   They are totally for an arrangement that's thoroughly repugnant to the majority being no longer illegal.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 27, 2014)

Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 27, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yep.

6 more were just added.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 27, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage should be between a male and a female.
> ...


Marriage is between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2014)

Now it is fun watching deviants like weasel and sil fumble and stumble along.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.


Incorrect.

No marriage law exists that can accommodate three or more persons, which is not the case with same-sex couples who are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as the law is currently written. That's why disallowing same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2014)

Hetero fascists, please show us marriage laws that facilitate the marriage of three or more people.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 27, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And that's as it should be. 

I notice that the phobes have had nothing to say about the ways in which marriage has changed through the ages.  There's nothing "traditional" that needs to be protected. Its the equal rights of all citizens that we should all be working to protect.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 27, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.
> ...


Because the law is written to accommodate two persons.

The mistake you're making is to perceive this as some sort of 'change' to marriage, or 'change' to marriage law, when in fact that's not the case.

Nothing is being 'changed,' no law is being 'altered' or 'redefined.' Marriage laws currently can accommodate two equal partners entering into a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Three or more persons can't enter into a marriage contract because the law isn't written to accommodate such a union, having nothing to do with gay Americans.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 27, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Also the 'tradition argument' is legally invalid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 27, 2014)

Marriage law is about two people only.

Sil and Where were observed catching the last train to Clarkesville.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 27, 2014)

Bottom line is, its happening. 

Doesn't matter if you disagree or have some outdated and inaccurate view of what marriage is. Doesn't matter what you want it to be.


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2014)

It's so funny when Gay Marriage advocates point to "the law" to reject arguments regarding polygamy, pedophilia, beastality and incest. 

"We should change the law to allow homosexual marriage!"
"Well what about polygamy, pedophilia, beastality and incest?"
"There's LAWWWS against that!" 

Okay, here's a few hypotheticals to play with... just for fun....

What about a gay brother and sister? Should they be allowed to marry?
How about a gay man who is already traditionally married to a straight woman, should he be allowed an 'additional' marriage to a gay man? 
What about a bisexual transvestite who sometimes loves a man and sometimes a woman? Should they be allowed two marriages to accommodate their love? 

And again.... What is the argument for an established "age of consent" when biology tells us that humans become sexually mature at around 12 or 13?


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



*nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.*

Yet this is EXACTLY what you support! My solution REMOVES government from the issue entirely and allows PEOPLE to decide for themselves. 

I don't hate gay people. It's offensive to me for you to continue accusing me of hating gay people when you have presented absolutely NO evidence to support that allegation. I am the one who is presenting a reasonable solution to the problem which resolves it forever. My viewpoint comes from an actual gay couple who have been together 30 years and are close personal friends of mine. 

YOU are the intolerant bigot who wants to use the courts and government to impose your will on society, and I reject that.


----------



## Boss (Oct 27, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Bottom line is, its happening.
> 
> Doesn't matter if you disagree or have some outdated and inaccurate view of what marriage is. Doesn't matter what you want it to be.



And this is what really bugs me... You people think, because for the moment you have the 'judicial' upper hand, that this is all perfectly acceptable and society will just have to learn to deal with it. In fact, some of you have grown quite cocky about it. 

The issue has not gone away and it won't go away anytime soon. You can only continue exploiting the judicial system so long before the people respond. Marriage will be what the people want it to be in America because the people have the power to make that happen. 

Every ballot measure that has been presented to the people has failed miserably. The only places gay marriage stands is where the courts and legislatures overruled the will of the people to make it happen. What's more, you have a rather large and significant evangelical base who can probably ratify a new constitutional amendment, if need be. 

It doesn't need to come to that, there is no reason to fight another 30 years for this. I proposed a solution that resolves the matter for gay couples, for religious people, for governments and courts, for everyone but extremist radical bigots who simply need the issue to foment hate. Gay couples could be realizing the benefits within a year, problem solved, issue over... but you fuckwits don't want that because you're emboldened by a few "victories" in activist courts. This is going to bite you in the ass... and not in the good way.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.



I keep hearing that from bigots who keep telling everyone that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.
> ...



Clearly you know a lot more about sucking off Conservative men, so I bow to your greater knowledge.

Me? As a happily married man, with lots of Conservative friends- I occasionally use hyperbole.

Most Conservatives are good people and not bigots.

I should never use the term Conservative to identify homophobic bigots who just always happen to be more Conservative than John Birch.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.
> ...



"Ni**er"...fag....****....'c*nt....all the words used for the same purpose, by the same people.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.
> ...


Incorrect. No marriage law permitted two of the same gender to marry. Basing it on traditional marriage while rejecting traditional marriage is hypocritical. FAIL.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 28, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.
> ...


The bigotry and hypocrisy is all yours if you deny anyone the right to marry. The only fair thing in the gay marriage states is to let anybody marry in any number.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 28, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Oh wow. You have conservative friends. Do you believe in inter-political marriages as well?


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Also the 'tradition argument' is legally invalid.


...which is why there's no basis for two person marriages in gay states. Try to keep up.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 28, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Considering the criminal legal system would still be around under a more libertarian government, I don't know where you are going here.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 28, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



So you define following one of the major religions on this planet as "being a dick"

Look who is being intolerant here.


----------



## JimCamp (Oct 28, 2014)

Gay marriage is morally wrong and should not be legalized. It is inappropriate, its not right, its disgusting in every way. It stops kids from being born, gay men relations spread NASTY diseases. I can continue, if you want.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2014)

JimCamp said:


> Gay marriage is morally wrong and should not be legalized. It is inappropriate, its not right, its disgusting in every way. It stops kids from being born, gay men relations spread NASTY diseases. I can continue, if you want.




Yes, please do...you only help the marriage equality argument. 

How does it stop kids from being born exactly? Do straights stop fucking their spouses because Adam and Steve got married? Why?


----------



## Boss (Oct 28, 2014)

Gaybos? Questions are still on the table... any takers? 

What about a gay brother and sister? Should they be allowed to marry?

How about a gay man who is already 'traditionally' married to a straight woman, should he be allowed an 'additional' marriage to a gay man? 

What about a bisexual transvestite who sometimes loves a man and sometimes a woman? Should they be allowed two marriages to accommodate their love? 

And again.... What is the argument for an established "age of consent" when biology tells us that humans become sexually mature at around 12 or 13?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Clearly you know a lot more about sucking off Conservative men, so I bow to your greater knowledge.

Me? As a happily married man, with lots of Conservative friends- I occasionally use hyperbole.

Most Conservatives are good people and not bigots.

I should never use the term Conservative to identify homophobic bigots who just always happen to be more Conservative than John Birch.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

Boss said:


> Gaybos? Questions are still on the table... any takers?
> 
> What about a gay brother and sister? Should they be allowed to marry?
> 
> ...



What is a gaybo?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

JimCamp said:


> Gay marriage is morally wrong and should not be legalized. It is inappropriate, its not right, its disgusting in every way. It stops kids from being born, gay men relations spread NASTY diseases. I can continue, if you want.



Hmmm how does it stop kids from being born?

Why should you thinking gays are icky have anything to do with what is morally right or wrong?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



People of faith can be dicks also.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 28, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Also the 'tradition argument' is legally invalid.
> ...



What is a gay state? And which states don't allow marriages between two persons?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Indeed- so.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 28, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> What is a gay state? And which states don't allow marriages between two persons?


Huh?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 28, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Missing the point. Why is the government in the business of punishing people for "being dicks" to someone else? Especially when such "being dicks" is easily rectified by going to someone else for the non essential service.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 28, 2014)

PA laws have nothing to do with essential or non-essential services.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 28, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


False. Same-sex marriage, which I support, does not force morals on anybody. Nobody is forced to enter into a same-sex marriage. Nobody is prohibited from practicing traditional marriage. With same-sex marriage legal, gay couples are free to marry and straight couples are also free to marry. Marriage rights are expanded, and traditional marriages are not effected one bit.

Same-sex marriage bans _do _force morality on people. Anybody who wants to get married is forced to enter into an opposite-sex marriage. Gay couples are prohibited from marrying each other. Gay couples are _not _free to marry, but straight couples are. Marriage rights are restricted to straight couples, and same-sex marriages are illegal stripping gay couples of rights, dignity, and equal protection.

In only one case are morals being forced on anyone. And that is with same-sex marriage bans, not marriage equality. If you see both as equally forcing morality on society, then you have a completely bogus understanding of force.


Now to your argument. If government was out of marriage, that would be great. But that is not where things are going, expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples is a far better alternative than the status quo. Your solution is impractical and unrealistic. I too would love government out of marriage, but I recognize the reality of politics today. Marriage licenses aren't going anywhere. They exist in all 50 states, and a repeal of them in all 50 states would take decades and decades. In the meantime you would be fine granting special rights to opposite sex couples but denying them to same-sex couples. That is not an acceptable solution. Period.

My number one choice would be to get rid of the marriage licenses, just like you. But marriage equality is the next best option. You, on the other hand, seem to see the next best option as granting rights to one group and not another until the marriage license is gone (which will never happen). Not to mention that or all intensive purposes your solution is *entirely semantic*, as I have said before.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 28, 2014)

Where is marriage equality forcing anyone to say that same sex marriage is moral?


----------



## Boss (Oct 28, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Yes, you are forcing your morals on society via the courts and government, and I don't support that. I'm glad you agree my solution would be your number one choice, I'm just miffed at why you think it is "impractical and unrealistic"? You didn't expound. 

You see.... I think it is very practical and realistic in context of the conservative philosophy of less government and more individual liberty. I think my solution would be wildly popular across party lines because, as I pointed out, it resolves the issue for all parties and ends the problem forever. There is truly not a better solution, and you agree with that. 

So we both agree on an amicable solution, but you want to continue pushing for something I cannot and will not ever support. Which one of us is being intolerant?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2014)

So Boss...have you called your congresscritter to "get the gubmint out of the marriage biz"? What was the response?


----------



## Boss (Oct 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where is marriage equality forcing anyone to say that same sex marriage is moral?



There is not marriage inequality. If there were, I would favor equality. You are trying to make something marriage that is not marriage and then say it's inequality. I could do the same thing with marrying children, marrying animals, multiple partners, dead people, inanimate objects... on and on and on. Just because you want to call something marriage doesn't make it marriage. 

No homosexual is being denied the right to marry. But marriage is the union of a man and woman, not same sex couples. Forcing society to accept your parameters for marriage is unacceptable to society, and they have repeatedly told you this in one ballot initiative after another across the country. 

So what we need to do is start looking at this from another perspective and try to find a way we can resolve the problem for all sides... That's what I have presented, but you want to stubbornly cling to the issue itself. We need to then ask, why do you oppose a reasonable solution that resolves the issue for all parties and ends the problem?


----------



## Boss (Oct 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> So Boss...have you called your congresscritter to "get the gubmint out of the marriage biz"? What was the response?



Well, my state representatives think it's a good idea and thanked me for it. My federal representatives maintain it's not a federal matter since the Fed doesn't issue marriage licenses. But the thing about this is, like any initiative, it will take a solid grass roots coalition effort, and that starts right here with us. I can't change the laws by myself.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > What is a gay state? And which states don't allow marriages between two persons?
> ...



Here is what you said:
_..which is why there's no basis for two person marriages in gay states. Try to keep up._

I quoted you- shouldn't have been hard to figure that out

What is a gay state? And which states don't allow marriages between two persons?


----------



## jillian (Oct 28, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



he also misses the point of "equal protection". multiple partners is not "equal" to being allowed to marry the consenting adult of our choice.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 28, 2014)

Boss said:


> So what we need to do is start looking at this from another perspective and try to find a way we can resolve the problem for all sides... That's what I have presented, but you want to stubbornly cling to the issue itself. We need to then ask, why do you oppose a reasonable solution that resolves the issue for all parties and ends the problem?



If you want to eliminate legal marriage for all- that would be equitable to everyone but not necesarily fair.

At one time a reasonable solution was proposed- 'Domestic Partnership'- that was fought tooth and nail by Conservatives to ensure that Domestic Partnerships did not have the same legal rights as marriage. 

So to hell with compromise- I am all for marriage equality- I see no reason why Bob and Bill or Jane and Jill should not be able to be married exactly as my wife and I are.


----------



## jillian (Oct 28, 2014)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > So Boss...have you called your congresscritter to "get the gubmint out of the marriage biz"? What was the response?
> ...



no doubt a fellow rightie would agree with you.

but no one ever said the right had any concept of equal protection


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 28, 2014)

Righties, get over it.

Marriage equality is here and it takes nothing from you.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Righties, get over it.
> 
> Marriage equality is here and it takes nothing from you.



Yeah, but it makes them feel icky.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 28, 2014)

Boss said:

“Well, my state representatives think it's a good idea and thanked me for it.”

In which case your state representative is as ignorant as you.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 28, 2014)

The social right's childish response to marriage equality of taking the marriage ball and going home with it is both ridiculous and pathetic.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> “Well, my state representatives think it's a good idea and thanked me for it.”
> 
> In which case your state representative is as ignorant as you.



More likely his rep (who is probably civilly married himself) was blowing him off.


----------



## MaryL (Oct 28, 2014)

Gays always had rights same as ANYONE. The SAME rights. Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution. Its  always been: We, the People. Not "We, the sexually different but equal PEOPLE". Nope. Homosexuality has never been PROVEN to be equitable to Heterosexuality. It's kind of vague, the medical community won't commit to Homosexuality as a valid sexual identity or as a mental or physical dysfunction NOW. Realy? Why is that? Gays have deep pockets, not  much else.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

So.... What we see, once again, is a reasonable proposal to resolve the problem with all sides ostensibly getting the thing they want most...and one after another, lefties sound off on how I am a bigoted homophobic moron rightie. No explanation, no justification, just outright refusal to even try to be objective or open minded. 

It should be clear to everyone, this issue is not about the problem being resolved. It should be obvious the left would rather keep the issue alive so they can continue to bash and trash conservatives, denigrate the religious, and give the illusion they are fighting for a cause. 

Someone says, "Oh, but they tried 'domestic partnerships' and conservatives fought that!" No they didn't try what I proposed. McCain once suggested civil unions for gay couples as a 'separate but equal' compromise and it was not popular on either side because it wasn't a solution. Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Gays always had rights same as ANYONE..



Really- how wrong can you be?

Up until the 1960's Gays were denied hiring at the State Department, and fired from the State Department- for being Gay.
Up until just a couple of years ago, Gays excluded from the Armed Forces. 
And of course a gay couple until recently, could not get married like my wife and I are married.

And that doesn't even go into laws that specifically made sex illegal between homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Gays always had rights same as ANYONE. The SAME rights. Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution. .



Marriage is never mentioned in the Constitution.


----------



## Judicial review (Oct 29, 2014)

Lesibans smell bad.   Damn womenists..


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> . Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.



So I bit the bullet- and went looking for your proposal. 

Scrolled back 11 days, over 200 posts.

And decided I just didn't care enough to look any further. 

You have been talking about your proposal for the last 11 days, without telling us again what the proposal is.

Care to share it again?


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > . Again, my suggestion removes federal government from determining or sanctioning what marriage is for anyone and solely recognizes domestic partnerships alone.
> ...



My solution: 

At the Federal level: Replace all language in federal laws which mention "marriage" or "married couples" or "spouse" etc., with "civil union partnership" and "domestic partner" etc. (removing recognition of any 'marriage' gay or straight.) All existing "marriages" recognized by the Federal government become a de facto civil union. All taxation or federal benefits recognize only civil union contracts and sanction no type of 'marital' arrangement. 

At the State level: Encourage states to follow suit with federal expungement of "mariage" language in their individual laws. States would no longer be able to issue "marriage" licenses because the federal government would not recognize them after a certain date. 

From the perspective of the government, marriage would no longer exist. Only domestic partnership contracts. Individuals, churches, and social groups could still define and recognize whatever they please as "marriage" without implication or government sanction. 

As I pointed out, this resolves the issue for everyone. Gay couples are able to qualify for benefits, file joint tax returns, etc. Religious institutions are able to preserve "sanctity of traditional marriage" or even liberally adopt "gay marriage" if they so desire. Individual persons are free to define "marriage: however they wish. Government and courts are no longer in the position of determining for us, what we call marriage. 

Problem solved, issue settled, everyone wins, the debate ends.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too. 

Gays don't care what it's called as long as it is equal for all non familial consenting adult couples. Since we don't give a flying fuck what it's called, the onus is on the haters that don't want gays to be "married" to change it. Have you called your Congressman?


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


When you step back from the issue.....one might realize how insane the whole thing really is.

Guesses about the percentages of the population that are gay range from 2%-10%. The percentage of those who get married, if it were legal nationwide, should be the same as straights.

I don't know anybody who doesn't have strong opinions on this issue, but the people truly affected by it are probably less than 5% of the population.

The "traditional marriage" argument has de-evolved over the last 20 years. When religious opposition became a less potent argument, it pivoted to "protection of traditional marriage". That's a tough angle because traditional marriages are legally unaffected by gay marriages, so they're stuck defending a concept.

I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.

1. My church says it's bad
2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too.
> 
> Gays don't care what it's called as long as it is equal for all non familial consenting adult couples. Since we don't give a flying fuck what it's called, the onus is on the haters that don't want gays to be "married" to change it. Have you called your Congressman?



First of all, no it's not something that has been proposed or tried. States simply can't oppose what is done at the Federal level. They get two votes in the Senate, so I calculate 12 votes against. If they want to ban what the federal government defines as a couple or joint tax filers etc., the SCOTUS can remedy that. 

Next, my proposal is not exclusive to "non familial" couples, you could get a CU with your sister, the government is not discerning the nature of the relationship between contracting parties. Obviously, they would have to be of legal age and consenting. 

I've already told you I contacted my Congressmen and Representatives. For conservatives who oppose my idea I would argue, are you a hypocrite or do you want government out of our lives? 

The onus is on US as a society to work together for a reasonable resolution to our problems. But in order to get to this reasonable solution, we first have to lay down the torches and pitchforks and stop "siding" against each other.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.
> 
> 1. My church says it's bad
> 2. The thought of gays having sex makes me feel icky
> 3. The Republican Party opposes it so I better too.



You forgot my motivation for opposition. I don't believe government or courts should dictate what I call marriage or what anyone calls marriage. Also, because of Equal Protection, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to allow marriage to be sanctioned by government on the basis of sexuality. I believe it would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis, and the Constitution would support them.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Here is the thing- I actually agree with you.

But.....almost everyone on the right and the left would oppose it.  It is a solution that would have been what I preferred 10 years ago- but it is a solution that would have to pass Congress- and no Republican House would pass it. 

If nothing else because they would be seen to be caving to the LGBT community- and while the GOP is moving more towards hoping no one asks them about marriage equality- they very much don't want to be seen as caving on the issue.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 29, 2014)

jillian said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



The point you peter puffers or carpet munchers.  argue when you claim equal protection is that you get to do what normal male/female couples do.  If your argument is equality and all those multiple partners are consenting adults, it's the same whether you're capable of understanding that simple concept or not.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > And as we've said...yours is not a fresh new proposal nor is it a proposal opposed by gays. Your proposal is opposed by the following states: Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota. All those states have bans on civil unions too.
> ...



Well actually States can- marriage laws are under the State's authority so long as the State law doesn't violate the Constitution.

The Federal government could eliminate Federal benefits to marriage, but couldn't actually eliminate marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



The point you bigots argue when you argue against equal protection is that you are arguing that Big Brother should be telling Americans how we can have sex in the privacy of our homes with consenting adults.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Here is the thing- I actually agree with you.
> 
> But.....almost everyone on the right and the left would oppose it.  It is a solution that would have been what I preferred 10 years ago- but it is a solution that would have to pass Congress- and no Republican House would pass it.
> 
> If nothing else because they would be seen to be caving to the LGBT community- and while the GOP is moving more towards hoping no one asks them about marriage equality- they very much don't want to be seen as caving on the issue.



What you are saying is, you agree with me but you think too many might be opposed.... so let's just keep pushing for something most people overwhelmingly oppose? 

I actually don't see my solution as "caving" to anyone. In fact, one of the key principles of conservatism is smaller limited government. Getting government out of our lives. The Libertarian wing is all about individual liberty. The religious right simply wants to protect traditional marriage. My solution allows all of that and more. 

Now think abou it... You support gay marriage, I am opposed to gay marriage. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this. You have your argument, I have my argument, and we do not agree at all.... yet, here I've proposed something you can live with and I can live with. Neither of us have to concede our arguments regarding gay marriage, you are free to continue supporting it and I am free to continue opposing it. But from the perspective of government, they are taken out of the argument completely. Gay couples get what they want. Religious people get what they want. Government is no longer dictating this.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the thing- I actually agree with you.
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> Now think abou it... You support gay marriage, I am opposed to gay marriage. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this. You have your argument, I have my argument, and we do not agree at all.... yet, here I've proposed something you can live with and I can live with. Neither of us have to concede our arguments regarding gay marriage, you are free to continue supporting it and I am free to continue opposing it. But from the perspective of government, they are taken out of the argument completely. Gay couples get what they want. Religious people get what they want. Government is no longer dictating this.



And again Boss- I have no idea with the concept. 

If you can implement your plan before same gender marriage is legal in all 50 states, I would be fine with that. 

I think that the majority of the same people who oppose same gender marriage- AND the majority of people who support same gender marriage would oppose your plan. 

Far from everyone getting what they want- I think both sides would feel cheated. Not that that bothers me- but it will prevent your plan from execution.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Well actually States can- marriage laws are under the State's authority so long as the State law doesn't violate the Constitution.
> 
> The Federal government could eliminate Federal benefits to marriage, but couldn't actually eliminate marriage.



Well yes, marriage laws are currently under state authority, but that doesn't affect what the Feds do regarding domestic arrangements. Once there is no Federal purpose for defining marriage, there is no reason for states to do so either. If the Feds aren't going to recognize a "marriage license" anymore, there would be no purpose for the state to issue them. Okay, so your state wants to be defiant and cling to issuing marriage licenses? Fine, but you can no longer file joint tax returns or be eligible for Social Security benefits, etc. 

And under this scenario, we are just one court case away from ruling the "marriage license" unconstitutional. You cannot have states defiantly preventing citizens from obtaining legitimate government benefits. I don't think it would ever come to this, as states would see the writing on the wall and comply with establishing civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well actually States can- marriage laws are under the State's authority so long as the State law doesn't violate the Constitution.
> ...



Actually you would probably need a Constitutional amendment to do that. 

Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over, so long as they don't violate the U.S. Constitution. 

Anyway- like I said- I agree in concept- I don't see it happening. But if you can make it happen, I would accept it as an alternative.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now think abou it... You support gay marriage, I am opposed to gay marriage. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on this. You have your argument, I have my argument, and we do not agree at all.... yet, here I've proposed something you can live with and I can live with. Neither of us have to concede our arguments regarding gay marriage, you are free to continue supporting it and I am free to continue opposing it. But from the perspective of government, they are taken out of the argument completely. Gay couples get what they want. Religious people get what they want. Government is no longer dictating this.
> ...



You can cite all the polls you like, there is nowhere in the country where "gay marriage" has been adopted on the ballot by vote of the people. It only exists in states where legislatures and courts have ruled it into existence, often to the disapproval of the people. That will not stand, and you should be smart enough to understand it won't. You're merely setting up a situation where future legislatures and courts can rule the other way, and this issue continues to be an issue. 

As I see it, the only people who would oppose my solution are the extreme activists on both sides, who are using this issue for political gain. They are not interested in a resolution unless it's THEIR solution, which isn't going to happen. So we can go back and forth for another 20, 30, 40 years, not resolving this, as gay couples live out their lives without the benefits they seek and we remain politically at each other's throats... OR.... we can come to some kind of agreement on a solution which basically gives everyone what they want.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Actually you would probably need a Constitutional amendment to do that.
> 
> Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over, so long as they don't violate the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Anyway- like I said- I agree in concept- I don't see it happening. But if you can make it happen, I would accept it as an alternative.



*Marriage is recognized as a right for Americans, and is recognized as a right that States have authority over...*

This makes NO logical sense to me. If the State has authority over something, it is *NOT* a right!


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> there is nowhere in the country where "gay marriage" has been adopted on the ballot by vote of the people.



Not true.

Maine, Maryland and Washington.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Look- if you want to have a conversation- but if you are going to make a claim- and then I show you the numbers- admit that your hyperbole was incorrect - but don't just suddenly pretend like the polls aren't real.

And then you have gone and done it again.

_In the regular November 2012 elections, voters for the first time approved the legalization of same-sex marriage by popular vote in three states: Maine, Maryland, and Washington_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Actually you would probably need a Constitutional amendment to do that.
> ...



Sure- you have a right to own a gun- but the State has the authority to regulate guns- and for example- prevent a convicted felon from owning a gun. 

A state must have a compelling interest in denying rights to someone- like not allowing a convicted felon from owning a gun- or denying the right of association to a convicted sex offender.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > I've been saying this for years...but I believe that opposition to gay marriage comes from only 3 types of motivation.
> ...


You fit # 2.

Almost everyone I've ever talked to about this, who uses that consitutional argument...is in the late stages of marriage equality argument erosion. It's the last refuge for folks before they give up and say...."Oh screw it, it's okay I guess"


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



No, I don't fit #2 because I don't care what kind of sex other people have. As for "late stages" or whatever, I am on record with a sensible civil unions proposal which would give gay couples what they want.... and they already have marriage equality. I'm not using an argument to prevent gay couples from obtaining the benefits they want, I am suggesting a way that can be accomplished without having government redefine marriage for us. 

What you are doing is rejecting my proposal and continuing with the vitriolic attacks on my character. It proves my earlier point that you aren't interested in resolving the issue because you get too much political mileage out of having it around. It lets you sit here and tee off on me, call me names, pretend I am homophobic and bigoted, liken me to racists, etc. That gets your rocks off and you don't want to give it up, even if it would help gay couples.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 29, 2014)

I have no idea if you personally fit #2 or not.

Doesn't matter.

Because of the legal responsibilities in marriage, the arrangement will continue to addressed in law.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Guns are different because we all have the right to live. But for clarity sake, I believe we should all have the right to call marriage whatever we please. I don't believe there is any compelling reason to allow government that power over us, whether it is to tell us we must accept "gay marriage" or we must accept "traditional marriage."


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> I have no idea if you personally fit #2 or not.
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> Because of the legal responsibilities in marriage, the arrangement will continue to addressed in law.



As I suggested, we simply redefine current law at the federal level. There is no fundamental purpose why the government needs to know the nature of my relationship with another human being. None. We've entangled government in this issue it has no business being involved with. Our relationships should be left for US to define, not the government, not the courts, not your activist group or theirs.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > there is nowhere in the country where "gay marriage" has been adopted on the ballot by vote of the people.
> ...



Okay, I stand corrected, as of 2012 there are three. Still, this can be undone by future ballot initiatives. You've legitimized the process. I've proposed a solution that takes it off the ballots forever, no more haggling back and forth, just a resolve that satisfies everyone. Except for the extreme activist, that is.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?

How is guessing you'll be close to giving up on opposition to gay marriage an attack?


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?
> 
> How is guessing you'll be close to giving up on opposition to gay marriage an attack?



Because I don't want the *government* sanctioning all kinds of deviant sexual behaviors. I don't care what you do behind closed doors, that's your business as long as no one is harmed and everyone consents. I just don't want government in the position of saying this sex is okay but that sex is not, and then be told by SCOTUS that equal protection applies and if this sex is okay then that sex has to also be okay. I'd rather leave what kind of sex is okay or not up to the individual and leave government the hell out of it. It's not their place to legitimize your sexual behaviors. 

And ya didn't guess correctly, I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?
> ...


You don't think gay people having sex is icky...but you think it's deviant behavior?

If you don't care what kind of sex other people have...why do you care if it's deviant?


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 29, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?
> ...



The Rude Pundit


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> You don't think gay people having sex is icky...but you think it's deviant behavior?
> 
> If you don't care what kind of sex other people have...why do you care if it's deviant?



It deviates from the norm, therefore it is deviant. Again... don't care if you have deviant sex.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

> Maybe you do just plain think it's icky



Let me be perfectly blunt, I would never let another man stick his penis in my anus. Nor am I interested in sticking my penis in another man's anus. These things do not arouse me sexualy in the least. It doesn't matter if I think they are "iky" they just don't crank my tractor. 

I like curvy women with nice tits. I might even like doing some 'deviant' things with them, but unless I am really drunk and they are really hot, it won't involve anything going up my ass. 

But hey... I understand if that's your thing, I don't have a problem with it. I would never support a law that said you couldn't do that. Likewise, if you want to have a domestic partnership with someone of your same gender, I don't have a problem with it. I'm only opposed to it being defined as marriage from the perspective of government. If you want to call it marriage, I don't have a problem with that either, but I shouldn't be forced to accept your beliefs any more than you should be forced to accept mine. And that is what you seek to do.


----------



## Boss (Oct 29, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Sorry, not going to read a blog that calls me a bigot.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > You don't think gay people having sex is icky...but you think it's deviant behavior?
> ...


Then why did you bring it up at all?

I'm pretty sure you think it's icky, and won't admit it.

You don't care what kind of sex people have, but you want to stop some of them from marrying, based on what kind they have?

Doesn't add up.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> > Maybe you do just plain think it's icky
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blunt - honesty.

It makes you feel icky


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 29, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It's not marriage equality.  It's marriage extinction.


SSM certanly isn't fixing any of the root causes of divorce, that's for sure. Inviting more people to join the 50%+ divorce rate isn't an improvement at all.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 29, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> So you think that if a gay couple get married that will somehow hurt or do away with your marriage? Must be a bad marriage if that's all it takes to destroy it.


I think anything that igores the problem is part of the problem.

We need a federal marriage amendment defining the right, who can and cannot marry, and requiring pre-marital counseling.

Short of federal action, laws are only valid when they come from the legislature, not the courts. Sure a court can strike down a ban, but telling a state it has to honor certain kinds of couples runs against the 10th Amendment. If you want SSM legal in your state you're supposed to vote in Representatives who will do that and vote out Representatives who won't.

That's why Loving is an unconstitutional ruling, lead to SSM, and is why SSM is unethical. It has nothing to do with rather or not a same sex couple should have legal marriage and everything to do with following Due Process to adress it so you don't brake the systom.


----------



## Judicial review (Oct 29, 2014)

Why get married at all?  Stay single and sleep around a bunch.  This way you prevent her from divorcing your ass and stealing your shit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 29, 2014)

Pezz said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > So you think that if a gay couple get married that will somehow hurt or do away with your marriage? Must be a bad marriage if that's all it takes to destroy it.
> ...


This is ignorant and ridiculous.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 29, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is ignorant and ridiculous.


You're just a troll, and not a very good one at that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 29, 2014)

Boss said:

“I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.”

And you're at liberty to express your beliefs, no one is trying to change that.

But you're not at liberty to seek to codify those beliefs by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 29, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But you're not at liberty to seek to codify those beliefs by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.


Yes he is. That's how the systom works: anyone can try and make any silly 'oll rule they want. That doesn't mean they'll get their way, but the 1st Amendment entitles them to have the government redress any grievance they want.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 29, 2014)

Pezz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > But you're not at liberty to seek to codify those beliefs by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.
> ...


Key word..."try"

Making laws that prohibit gay marriage have an impending show down with the constitution via the SCOTUS.

Not sure why people fight it, it's a lost cause thank God.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 29, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


You're saying that following due process is a lost cause and you're involving religion.

How long have you been a member of ISIS?


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



I didn't bring it up, it was brought up and I addressed it. I don't want to stop anyone from marrying. But marrying is the union of a man and woman. I want to stop government from redefining marriage. I presented a reasonable solution that gives everyone what they want, and you're still not satisfied. You still need to call me names and ridicule me for what I believe, then try to force what you believe down my throat. I'm intolerant of THAT.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> I didn't bring it up, it was brought up and I addressed it. I don't want to stop anyone from marrying. But marrying is the union of a man and woman. I want to stop government from redefining marriage. I presented a reasonable solution that gives everyone what they want, and you're still not satisfied. You still need to call me names and ridicule me for what I believe, then try to force what you believe down my throat. I'm intolerant of THAT.


If this were truly a Christian nation then SSM wouldn't be an issue. Neither would abortion.  Just convert more people to Christianity and the problem will solve itself.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> “I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.”
> 
> ...



No one has been denied access to marriage law. Homosexuals are eligible to marry someone of the opposite sex in any state they please. You're not at liberty to redefine marriage, unless you can pass and ratify a constitutional amendment.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Pro-SSM never counter that argument. Watch as the 2 standard _diversions_ surface: *1.* the refrence to Loving and Blacks marrying Blacks, just not Whites, and *2.* the sugestion that the right is to marry whomever you _choose_.

There is a counter to your point, but let's see if pro-SSM on this thread can fogure it out.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Pro-SSM never counter that argument. Watch as the 2 standard _diversions_ surface: *1.* the refrence to Loving and Blacks marrying Blacks, just not Whites, and *2.* the sugestion that the right is to marry whomever you _choose_.
> 
> There is a counter to your point, but let's see if pro-SSM on this thread can fogure it out.



Yes, they've already raised both #1 and #2 in this thread. What they can't do is find reasonable objection to my solution of civil unions and getting government out of the business of marriage or telling us what can or can't be marriage. They continue to dismiss my suggestion as "something that will never work" while continuing to hurl insults and denigrate anyone who rejects their gay marriage agenda. 

I think their dirty little secret is, they'd rather have the issue than to resolve it. This isn't about gay couples obtaining rights or benefits, it's about partisan left-wing ideologues having a vehicle to pound conservatives and Christians over the head with.


----------



## Judicial review (Oct 30, 2014)

I've decided I'm going to write a book.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Yes, they've already raised both #1 and #2 in this thread. What they can't do is find reasonable objection to my solution of civil unions and getting government out of the business of marriage or telling us what can or can't be marriage. They continue to dismiss my suggestion as "something that will never work" while continuing to hurl insults and denigrate anyone who rejects their gay marriage agenda.
> 
> I think their dirty little secret is, they'd rather have the issue than to resolve it. This isn't about gay couples obtaining rights or benefits, it's about partisan left-wing ideologues having a vehicle to pound conservatives and Christians over the head with.


Civil marriage is keeping government in marriage. If you want to remove government from marriage then there can be no legal acknowledgement of the relationship  at all.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Okay...listen to this preacher instead.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You say you're not a bigot...but your argument sure do mirror those of the bigots that have come before you...

_The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." _


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 30, 2014)

I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.

-Geaux


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 30, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.
> 
> -Geaux



I would advise against entering into one then.


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 30, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.
> ...



And I would demand that others can't. 

-Geaux


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 30, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



You can demand all you want to...like a toddler in Walmart. Will you throw a temper tantrum in the parking lot when the world ignores you and marries anyway?


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 30, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Meh, probably not. I realize like in the election, I'm in the minority of opinion. However, that does not change my position. But I get what you're saying, it will pass and become an acceptable form of society and culture. If I'm lucky, I should only have ~26 good years left. Hopefully I miss the grand finale gay parade march on inauguration day. Just a matter of time. I predict 3 'historic' elections. We have already seen the first black, and likely a woman next. Then comes the 2 guys named Bob. And its not oral Roberts. :-0

-Geaux


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 30, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Yeah, I think you'll live to see the first gay President. I hope you do


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

I think we've already seen him. He was the first black president too!


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> I think we've already seen him. He was the first black president too!



Bill Clinton isn't gay...but you should watch this video.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> You say you're not a bigot...but your argument sure do mirror those of the bigots that have come before you...
> 
> _The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." _



You say you want to help gay couples obtain the benefits of other married couples too... but you continue to reject my proposal which resolves the issue forever. Instead, you'd rather continue calling me a bigot and insulting me. 

We've been through your 'protest' comparing this to interracial marriage, countless times now. People were being denied something based on the color of their skin which other people got to do. That was racial discrimination and against the law. Homosexuality is not race, there is nothing in the constitution which protects your sexual behavior or prevents discrimination based on it. You can't change the definition of marriage to include your sexual lifestyle. 

When the debate was had about interracial marriage, people warned this might lead to homosexuals wanting same-sex marriage, and they were dismissed as being ridiculous. Today, people are warning that same-sex marriage will lead to other sexual behaviors becoming legitimized through marriage, and they are being laughed at again. In 20 years, we will be debating multiple-partner marriage, adult-child marriage and/or human-animal marriage. Because your argument never ends, there is never enough immorality made acceptable. 

The ONLY solution to this is removing government from the role of determining what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to marriage. It's none of their damn business. You using government to impose your will on society is no different than me doing the same. But as we can see, when you are offered an olive branch and a way we can all be happy together, you promptly take the olive branch and beat me with it. The last thing in the world you want is to get along, to find common ground, to resolve our problems together.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > You say you're not a bigot...but your argument sure do mirror those of the bigots that have come before you...
> ...



Your proposal is fine. Get on it. Civil unions for all, I'm onboard. Of course, since you have a problem with my marriage license, the onus is on you to get the work done. I don't care what it's called as long as it's the same for all non familial adult couples.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 30, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.
> 
> -Geaux


Thank you, now there is a person who will admit where they're at.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> I think we've already seen him. He was the first black president too!


Wow....being gay, black, or a woman is all bad huh?.......Sure you don't hate gays......yeah right.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Your proposal is fine. Get on it. Civil unions for all, I'm onboard. Of course, since you have a problem with my marriage license, the onus is on you to get the work done. I don't care what it's called as long as it's the same for all non familial adult couples.



Can't happen as long as Gay Marriage is being sought. It's akin to saying you want peace but without a ceasefire... doesn't work. There is no onus on me, I'm not a gay couple or religious person, the issue means nothing whatsoever from where I sit. I am just proposing an amicable solution to the problem which gives all sides what they claim to want. And oh by the way, my solution doesn't only apply to "non-familial" couples, there is no discrimination, it applies to any two people who are of legal age, who want to enter into a civil contract. This could apply to someone who is caring for an aging parent, two spinster sisters, whatever. The paramount thing about what I am proposing has to be the absence of appearing to be marriage by another name. I'm not interested in 'back-dooring' gay marriage into law. ...Pardon the pun.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I think we've already seen him. He was the first black president too!
> ...



No one said anything was bad. You continue to infer absolute lies about me and attempt to impugn my character. And that's really the bottom line here, that's what you are after. It means more to you than a resolution we can all agree on. Your nickname suits you to a tee. You're toxic, plain and simple. All you seem to want to do is agitate and denigrate, like the sorry piece of shit you are. That being said, we are done conversing, I will not feed your toxicity.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 30, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




The problem I have with the homos and their supporters on this issue is that you claim you don't want Big Brother telling you who you can marry because it's no one else's business then support the concept of that same "Brother" being able to limit certain types of marriage YOU don't like then trying to justify it as if you're actually doing something different than those who oppose same sex marriage.  If two first cousins that are consenting adults want to marry or consenting adults that happen to want to marry more than one person , who the hell are you to tell them they shouldn't?  In other words, since it doesn't harm you, you have no say


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



The problem I have with anti-homosexual homophobic posters on this issue is that you bring up strawmen to justify your opposition to marriage equality for homosexuals.

As a friend- and supporter of homosexuals who would like to marry- I think that there is no reason that they should not be treated any differently than my wife and I were treated when we got married. They want to marry for the exact same reasons that my wife and I wanted to get married- because we loved each other- and wanted to legally commit to each other for the rest of our lives in the way our legal system provides for. 

It is homophobic posters like yourself that tell homosexuals that they only get to do what 'normal male/female couples' get to do. You think that the government should be ensuring that people only have the kind of sex that you approve of people having- you disapprove of 'peter puffers' and 'carpet munchers'- and think the government shouldn't allow allow oral sex between adults.

It is homophobic posters who bring up first cousins marrying(legal and has been legal in 11 states longer than same gender marriage) and then try to label homosexuals as being hypocrites for disapproving of first cousin marriages.

Even though homosexuals- and myself- aren't arguing for- or against- first cousin marriages. You are.

I have a problem with the hypocrisy of homophobes whose argument is so shallow that they can't argue their case without pretending like homosexuals have taken any position other than arguing to be treated just like any other couple who is exactly the same as they are- other than gender. 

Bob and Bill want to be treated just like Bob and Jill in marriage- assuming the only difference between Bill and Jill is gender. 

Yes- that is marriage equality.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Your proposal is fine. Get on it. Civil unions for all, I'm onboard. Of course, since you have a problem with my marriage license, the onus is on you to get the work done. I don't care what it's called as long as it's the same for all non familial adult couples.
> ...



Gay Marriage is going to be sought unless you campaign for an alternative and convince people that they would be better off with your proposal.

Since at this moment same gender marriage is legal in 31 states, and is likely to be legal in most states within the next year or two, there is no more incentive for gay couples to support your proposal- than there is any incentive for me to support it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> When the debate was had about interracial marriage, people warned this might lead to homosexuals wanting same-sex marriage, and they were dismissed as being ridiculous. .



No- they made the same kinds of dire warnings then that opponents to same gender marriage make now- that allowing mixed race marriages would lead to polygamy and incestuous marriage.

That hasn't happened.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 30, 2014)

toxicmedia said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Bob and Jill are already married but with the consent of both, Bob wants to marry Jane, too.  The only difference is that while you claim to argue for equality of consenting adults, you're entire argument centers around nothing more than two faggots wanting something.  The multiple partner marriage meets all the criteria put forth by the homos yet you still say it's different.  Keep sucking one.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



"faggot"...."n*gger"...."****"....."c*nt".....all the same kind of words, used by the same kind of people, for the same purpose>

Meanwhile- I have already addressed your strawman- if you want to promote polygamy- that is your right- but....

The problem I have with anti-homosexual homophobic posters on this issue is that you bring up strawmen to justify your opposition to marriage equality for homosexuals.

As a friend- and supporter of homosexuals who would like to marry- I think that there is no reason that they should not be treated any differently than my wife and I were treated when we got married. They want to marry for the exact same reasons that my wife and I wanted to get married- because we loved each other- and wanted to legally commit to each other for the rest of our lives in the way our legal system provides for.

It is homophobic posters like yourself that tell homosexuals that they only get to do what 'normal male/female couples' get to do. You think that the government should be ensuring that people only have the kind of sex that you approve of people having- you disapprove of 'peter puffers' and 'carpet munchers'- and think the government shouldn't allow allow oral sex between adults.

It is homophobic posters who bring up first cousins marrying(legal and has been legal in 11 states longer than same gender marriage) and then try to label homosexuals as being hypocrites for disapproving of first cousin marriages.

Even though homosexuals- and myself- aren't arguing for- or against- first cousin marriages. You are.

I have a problem with the hypocrisy of homophobes whose argument is so shallow that they can't argue their case without pretending like homosexuals have taken any position other than arguing to be treated just like any other couple who is exactly the same as they are- other than gender.

Bob and Bill want to be treated just like Bob and Jill in marriage- assuming the only difference between Bill and Jill is gender.

Yes- that is marriage equality.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> That hasn't happened.



It's next.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > That hasn't happened.
> ...



Mixed race marriage bans were declared illegal 50 years ago.  If thats the slippery slope, then I am not likely to see it happen in my life time. 

I don't know anyone advocating to change the laws to allow brothers to marry sisters, except opponents to gay marriage.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Christ on a cracker...who hurt you?

Did you get picked on in school growing up?

Did your daddy or brothers beat you into a resentful state?

Do you just feel weak and inadequate?...and have to act like a tough guy on the internet?

Or are you indulging in adult beverages already?

If none of the above, maybe you should just find a lady and get laid.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well that's the problem I have with your idea, it doesn't consider ramifications. You just want what you want and to hell with the consequences. This seems to be the problem with the younger generation in general... some of you. And then, some of you older farts have been getting what you want your whole life, and you're still not satisfied. At some point, someone needs to tell you, "no, you can't have that, sorry!" 

There is no slippery slope with the equal protection clause, it's very clear. If you legitimize sexual behavior via marriage, then it applies to any sexual behavior that isn't illegal. So that means, as soon as we make incestual relations legal, it will be permitted through marriage and we'll have to accept that. As soon as we get the age of consent lowered to 12-years-old, we'll have adults marrying children. Sodomy was illegal 50 years ago, no one ever thought we'd see the day when homosexuals would demand to be married. So this is all a process, it starts with loosening the moral foundations and before you know it, nothing is restricted on the basis of morals anymore. Then civil society crumbles, like it did in Rome.

Now again... I don't want to impose my moral views on you. That's what YOU want to do. I suggested an alternative that doesn't impose anyone's moral view on society and resolves the issue. But this isn't about resolving the issue, is it? It's about forcing society to accept homosexuality whether they like it or not. Well, guess what? You're never going to accomplish that because most who are opposed to homosexuality are following a religious tenet and are not going to abandon that. Call them names, ridicule and condemn them, do whatever you please, they are not going to change their religious beliefs.


----------



## Figaro (Oct 30, 2014)

How do you feel about this? Is it not sickening?
Awesome shit. I've kissed the porcelain god...


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > There is no slippery slope with the equal protection clause, it's very clear. If you legitimize sexual behavior via marriage, then it applies to any sexual behavior that isn't illegal. So that means, as soon as we make incestual relations legal,.
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Figaro said:


> How do you feel about this? Is it not sickening?
> ..



You go looking on Youtube to find images you consider sickening?

Who does that?


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Sexual behavior is legitimate- and private- and has no connection to marriage.
> 
> No one is suggesting legalizing brothers marrying sisters except Conservatives who oppose same gender marriage.
> 
> The equal protection clause says that States can only deny rights to people if they can establish a valid State interest in denying those rights. No State has been able to make a convincing argument why Jack and Jill have the right to marry, but Jack and Bill do not.



Well I know you don't understand what I'm saying, that's why we're having this conversation. Sexual behavior is not always legitimate. Having sex with corpses isn't legitimate sexual behavior, is it? Society determines what sexual behaviors are legitimate and it largely depends on our moral values as a society. We don't believe in fucking kids, it's morally wrong, we have laws against it, it's not an accepted sexual behavior in this society. 

Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.



And that same argument could be made for several other sexual activities that were once illegal- including:
Miscegnation- including sex between people of different races
Adultery- sex a married person and an unmarried person
Fornication- sex between two unmarried individuals
Sodomy- including consensual oral sex between adults

All illegal at one time. 

I think we are better off with the government not putting people in prison for getting a blowjob.

Do you think that eliminating adultery laws inevitably leads to legal incest?

I think that there needs to be a compelling state interest for the State to be involved in sex- protecting children- who are treated legally different from adults- is a compelling state interest. There are two potential State interests in prohibiting incest- the rather weak genetic argument- or the more persuasive argument that incestuous relationships have far to much potential for having the same kind of authority problems that sex between a patient and a doctor has(also illegal).

I don't 'fucking' want government to be telling me how I can have sex with another consenting adult, unless there is a compelling reason. I am fine with the State telling me that sexual relationships between a patient and doctor, or a Father and Daughter have too much potential for abuse- but I am not okay with the State telling me how I can have sex with my wife or that if I was unmarried- that I couldn't have sex at all.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Incest is illegal, like sodomy was 50 years ago. That's why you don't see anyone lobbying for brother-sister marriage. Once we start destroying moral foundations regarding sexual behavior, where do we stop? Where do we draw the line? You're saying that we shouldn't draw the line, that whatever people want to do, they should be able to do. So at some point, someone says... hey, why CAN'T a brother and sister have sex? Then incest becomes legal, and then... brother-sister marriage is here! We already have child-sex advocacy groups like NAMBLA arguing that it's perfectly natural for children to be sexual. The walls continue to crumble, morality continues to erode away, and you just fucking do not care.
> ...



All you are really saying is, YOU want to determine "compelling reasons" for the rest of society and force them to abide by what YOU determine. That's not how civil society operates and never has been.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No- I am saying that under the Constitution, the state must have compelling reasons to deny rights to us.

And its not that hard:
A man and woman having consensual sex in the privacy of their home- that is a right to privacy.
A man having sex with a 5 year old girl- the interest of the state in protecting children over-rides the man's right to privacy.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 30, 2014)

Okay.  Let us be clear.  When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us *Do.  Not.  Want *to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.

We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves.  Period.  That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves.  You see, here's the thing.  I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours.  However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions.  I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion.  I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even *bi*sexual, for that matter.  I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying.  What I have, on every occasion said is that *my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant*.  Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy.  Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is *PERSONAL*, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.

I really wish that everyone would quit trying to suggest, imply, or state that those of us who feel this way are trying to "force our moral beliefs on..." anyone else.  The only "moral belief" that we are trying to "force" on anyone is the belief that no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or has the right to use the law to penalize them for holding those beliefs.

Are we all on the same page, now?


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



BULLSHIT! Show me where the Constitution says the State can deny our rights for "compelling reasons"!

Also show me where our right to privacy trumps another right, or anything trumps our right to privacy? 

These are things that simply are not in the US Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't have to. You know examples of it. 

Can states deny felon's the right to own or possess a gun?  The answer is yes- even though owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.

Can states deny a minister's right to practice religion if he wants to practice human sacrifice.....the answer is yes again.

Can states deny you the right of speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater- yes- it can. 

Can states deny the rights of a man to marry if he owes child support- turns out that the state cannot- because we have a right to marriage, and the state cannot establish any compelling purpose that will be achieved by denying a man his right to marriage if he owes child support.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Okay.  Let us be clear.  When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us *Do.  Not.  Want *to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.
> 
> We want each and every individual to make that determination for themselves.  Period.  That, in no way, shape, or form imposes our personal morality on anyone expect ourselves.  You see, here's the thing.  I have been told multiple times that I am in favour of a number of different behaviours.  However, I have, myself, never once stated my opinion on most moral questions.  I have never once said that I am in favour of abortion.  I have never said that I am homosexual - or, even *bi*sexual, for that matter.  I have never said that I am in favour of gays marrying.  What I have, on every occasion said is that *my personal opinion on these matters is irrelevant*.  Because, every one of these issues should be a question of one's personal philosophy.  Now, in case anyone on the Right is still having a hard time with that concept, allow my to point out that the most important word in that phrase is *PERSONAL*, meaning of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private, as in not public, not subject to public opinion, scrutiny, or judgement - no one else's damned business but the person in question.
> 
> ...



NO! Because that is *EXACTLY* what you want to do! Claiming that you don't want to do that while doing exactly that, is an insult to our intelligence. Damn straight I'm having a hard time with that. How would you feel if I were smugly sitting here saying, "Hey, I'm not trying to impose my moral view on you, I just don't think gays should be marrying each other!"? 

If you people HONESTLY believed that we shouldn't be imposing our moral views on this issue, then you'd support my solution of civil unions and NOT Gay Marriage.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  Let us be clear.  When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us *Do.  Not.  Want *to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.
> ...


How?  How exactly is insisting that every person has the right to make moral decisions for themselves forcing my morality on you?

Unless you are seriously claiming that it is you *moral position* that some people are morally superior, and therefor have the right to force other people to behave according to their judgements.  Is that really your position?  That I am forcing my morality on you by insisting that you do not get to force your morality on others?

Really?????


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yes... If you are going to claim it's in the Constitution, you need to show me where it's at in the fucking Constitution. Every example you gave is represented by a COURT DECISION. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about these limitations on our rights. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the Constitution which says the COURT has that right to determine, they've simply ASSUMED that right. 

And you are perfectly okay with this "compelling interest" bullshit that you haven't defined, as long at that "compelling interest" coincides with YOUR interests. When it doesn't, you scream bloody murder and demand the legislature "overturn" the ruling, like in Citizen's United. 

The Constitution lays out ENUMERATED powers to the Federal government, and then states unequivocally, that all other power rests with the people and states respectively.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> How? How exactly is insisting that every person has the right to make moral decisions for themselves forcing my morality on you?



Because with Gay Marriage, that is NOT what you are saying. You're telling me that I have to accept your moral view against my will because you think your view is superior to mine. 

MY solution doesn't impose anyone's moral views on anyone else, it removes government from imposing ANY moral view. It resolves this issue in a way that allows each individual to determine their own moral view without the government involved at all. As it SHOULD be!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  Let us be clear.  When it comes to questions of morality, I, Syriusly, and others like us *Do.  Not.  Want *to decide "for the rest of society" what behavior is, and is not appropriate.
> ...


I never said that I *don't* support that.  i support doing away with marriage altogether, and having civil unions for *everyone* - Gays, straights, atheists, Christians, everyone.  I fully support a "marriage certificate" being an absolutely useless piece of paper for anyone outside of the particular church which issued it, just like a confirmation certificate, or a baptism certificate.

Now, I'll tell you what.  Go ahead, and convince the Theocrats, and Moralists that they should give up *their marriages* being recognized by the State, and that the only kind of state recognition for domestic partnership should be civil unions for everyone.  Lemme know haw that works out for ya...

My only position on "Gay Marriage" is that *homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals.* If that is "marriage" then it's "marriage".  If it's "civil unions", then it should be "civil unions".  If it's "Carfulflargens" then it should be "Carfulflargens".  I don't give a shit *what* they are called - only that the state give the exact same recognition to homosexual domestic partners that they give to heterosexual domestic partners.  You don't get to give "marriages" to straight couples, and anything *not* "marriage" to not straight-couples.

Does that make my position clear enough for you?


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No, because that is not what you are fighting for or asking for. 

*...homosexuals should be allowed to have exactly the same recognition from the state as heterosexuals...*

I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I don't have to. You know examples of it. You can stamp your foot and complain as much as you want- I am telling you the facts

Can states deny felon's the right to own or possess a gun? The answer is yes- even though owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.

Can states deny a minister's right to practice religion if he wants to practice human sacrifice.....the answer is yes again.

Can states deny you the right of speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater- yes- it can. 

Can states deny the rights of a man to marry if he owes child support- turns out that the state cannot- because we have a right to marriage, and the state cannot establish any compelling purpose that will be achieved by denying a man his right to marriage if he owes child support.

You don't agree- feel free to go break any city or state gun law- and claim that as your defense. 

We will miss your presence while you spend your time in jail arguing that its not in the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And you are welcome to pursue what you want.

Meanwhile the rest of us will support marriage equality within the law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 30, 2014)

Boss said:

“I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.”

This is ignorant and ridiculous.

The Federal government has nothing to do with the marriage (contract) law written by the states and administered in state courts. Because the states write the contract law that is marriage, in fact making marriage legitimate, marriage is very much the business of state government. With their marriage laws states recognize the committed relationship between two consenting adult partners, same- or opposite-sex, having nothing to do with 'forcing' the rest of society to accept anything.

You and others hostile to gay Americans remain at liberty to practice your ignorance and hate, immune from state interference, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence does not apply to private persons or organizations.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I did not say these weren't the law, I said these examples are not stipulated in the Constitution. You have proven me correct by failing to produce the text in the Constitution to support your claim. These are all examples of COURT RULINGS which established these things as laws. Stop trying to twist my comments into an absurd argument you can defeat, I won't tolerate it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 30, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> “I don't want the state or federal government "recognizing" either one! It's none of their goddamn business! The government is not there to recognize (aka: legitimize) your sexual behaviors or to force the rest of society to accept them.”
> 
> ...



I reject your argument. There is nothing in the Constitution which permits government to decide what kind of marriage we can or can't have. It was our mistake to ever allow state governments to make marriage their business. THAT is what needs correcting. 

As for your assertion that "gay marriage" doesn't impose itself on society or individuals, there are already examples of pastors and clergy being harassed, threatened with fines and jail time if they refuse to conduct gay marriages, having their sermons subpoenaed to see if they are conforming. Courts are ordering bakers to make cakes and photographers to take pictures at gay weddings. Yet you sit here and lie through your shit-stained teeth about that and claim it isn't happening.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Feel free to argue that in court then.

Meanwhile- the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that that is the case. 

You disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court is merely an opinion that you disagree with the law.

Meanwhile- the States can only deny rights to any of us, when they can prove a compelling state interest in denying those rights.

And thems the facts.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And that is really all you do.

I am done with your argument in this thread.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Just noting that Seawytch was the first to make it personal, unable to discuss the topic itself.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> I reject your argument. There is nothing in the Constitution which permits government to decide what kind of marriage we can or can't have. It was our mistake to ever allow state governments to make marriage their business. THAT is what needs correcting.
> 
> As for your assertion that "gay marriage" doesn't impose itself on society or individuals, there are already examples of pastors and clergy being harassed, threatened with fines and jail time if they refuse to conduct gay marriages, having their sermons subpoenaed to see if they are conforming. Courts are ordering bakers to make cakes and photographers to take pictures at gay weddings. Yet you sit here and lie through your shit-stained teeth about that and claim it isn't happening.


Now you're making an entirely different kind of argument.  *Recognizing domestic partnerships* is entirely different from mandating what types of partnerships are legally acceptable.  The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people.  For you to suggest otherwise is ignorant, and pointless.  Now, to argue that they have no right to dictate what kind of marriage we can, and cannot have is entirely different, and on that we are in agreement.  The latter has nothing to do with the former.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That ship has already sailed.  The government has a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnership of spouses.  The government regulates divorce law.  It regulates inheritance law.  it provides evidential protections of spouses.  There are hundreds of ways in which the government, on a local, county, state, and even federal level, is  intimately entwined with the civil contract of domestic partnership.  Thus what you *want* government doing is irrelevant; part of its function requires that it recognise those contractual partnerships.  Now, if you don't want that being called "marriage" for all, then by all means pick a different label, and apply it to *all*, and relegate marriage to the useless, meaningless realm of all other purely religious practices, like baptism, and communion.

But, to bitch and whine that government "recognises" the legal domestic partnerships of heterosexuals, and homosexuals is ridiculous, pointless, ignorant, and, frankly, comes across a bit disingenuous.  No one had any problem with government recognising these partnerships before the gays got involved.  Why, suddenly, have we decided that it is "none of the government's business"?  Is it possible that we have decided this because we don't like the position that the government is taking?  If so, guess what?  That's just sour grapes; get over it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I reject your argument. There is nothing in the Constitution which permits government to decide what kind of marriage we can or can't have. It was our mistake to ever allow state governments to make marriage their business. THAT is what needs correcting.
> ...



*The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people.*
A simple joint partnership contract solves the problem. They have NO compelling interest in what type of intimate relationship that may or may not involve.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Well I'm not getting over it. Sorry. The government works for ME! I hire the government to handle certain things that I can't do by myself. I give them enumerated powers to conduct those affairs and nothing more. They don't own me, they don't get to tell me how to live. 

I will continue to speak out whenever government usurps powers they don't have and encroaches on my rights as an individual. And if you don't like that, you can suck my ass.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So, explain to us why the sudden interest in keeping government "out of your marriage".  Government recognition of marriages, and the enforcement of the rights, and privileges of that recognition has been going on since, at least, the middle ages.  Why is it only now, when the Government has agreed to add same-sex couples to that recognition, that you suddenly feel so intruded on by Government's recognition of marriage?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Filling the pool with cement.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually it doesn't - work for you, I mean.  The government works for the *Republic*.  You are only one very small part of that Republic.  For you to assume that you get to *dictate* what the government can, and cannot do, based on your own, tiny little opinion is the height of arrogance.  but, I'll tell you what.  Don't take my word for it.  Take your grievances to court.  Sue the Government, and demand that they stop recognising marriages of any kind.  Lemme know how that works out for ya.

You see, you don't really *want* Government to stop recognising marriages - you just want them to stop recognising *same-sex marriages*.  However, since you have already seen the writing on the wall, and know that you have lost that fight, you have chosen to stake out this outrageously extreme position of "Get government out of *all* marriages", in the hopes that it will gain more popularity.

Guess what?  It won't.  People *like* having divorce regulated.  They *like* being able to file taxes as married couples.  They *like* the protections, and privileges that come from the State recognising civil domestic partners.  And for the record, joint partnership agreements *don't* cover everything.  For instance, business partners do not have the criminal protection from being forced to testify against each other that spouses do.  And that is just off the top of my head. They also do not have the right to supersede family members in terms of medical decisions, should their partner become incapacitated, as spouses do.

No.  What you are trying to advocate is forcing citizens to suddenly have to file reams of new paperwork, in order to be recognised as having the rights, and privileges that are currently afforded to spouses through a single document, and civil service.  All because you have gotten your panties in a bunch over the fact that those damned gays are crashing your party.

But, hey! By all means.  Stake out that position.  Advocate for making things messier, more complicated, and for making the marriage of every couple in the United States - both gay, and straight - useless, and meaningless.  This should be fun.  Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Oh, and one last point.  You, Sir, are a hypocrite.  You insisted that, if I weren't trying to "force my morals" on you, I would not push for Gay marriage, but would advocate civil unions.  Yet, when I said that I would, in fact, support *just that*, you suddenly shat yourself, and moved the goal post, insisting that wasn't good enough; that you want government out of the "domestic partnership business" altogether.  So, now we see that it is not those of us who support people making their own choices trying to dictate morality; it is moralistic hypocrites like you, who will just keep moving the goal posts until you reach a line that it would be impossible for any reasonable person to support, and then insist that it is us who are being "unreasonable".


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

All the pitfalls and problems you mention about civil union contracts are fixable. I've not said that government should have no interest in domestic partnership, just the intimate nature of those partnerships. And I haven't raised the issue before because it hasn't come up until now. 

As for your little diatribe about government, you should read that back to yourself. Government is not your tool to use in order to force society to accept your personal principles. So stop trying to use government to do that and I will be happy.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> All the pitfalls and problems you mention about civil union contracts are fixable. I've not said that government should have no interest in domestic partnership, just the intimate nature of those partnerships. And I haven't raised the issue before because it hasn't come up until now.
> 
> As for your little diatribe about government, you should read that back to yourself. Government is not your tool to use in order to force society to accept your personal principles. So stop trying to use government to do that and I will be happy.


I'm not the one doing that.  That would be you.  I have said all along that it is not the government's job to decide who can, and cannot get married.  It is only their job to recognise the validity of the marriage certificate, regardless of who the participants are, and to afford those participants the rights, and privileges that come with that recognition.  I don't even care that it is necessarily called "marriage".  You indicated , originally, that this was your issue.  Fine.  Call it a civil union.  Call it a life partnership.  Call it a carfulflargen, for all I care.  But, when it comes to the rights, and privileges that come to the participants of the arrangement, you call it the same for everyone, and you treat everyone equally when they participate.

If your only interest is not having morality forced on you, you should agree with this civil, secular arrangement.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> I have said all along that it is not the government's job to decide who can, and cannot get married.  It is only their job to recognise the validity of the marriage certificate, regardless of who the participants are, and to afford those participants the rights, and privileges that come with that recognition.  I don't even care that it is necessarily called "marriage".  You indicated , originally, that this was your issue.  Fine.  Call it a civil union.  Call it a life partnership.  Call it a carfulflargen, for all I care.  But, when it comes to the rights, and privileges that come to the participants of the arrangement, you call it the same for everyone, and you treat everyone equally when they participate.
> 
> If your only interest is not having morality forced on you, you should agree with this civil, secular arrangement.



Okay, so we both agree on the principle and have a reasonable way to settle the issue, but you insist on adopting the activist approach of trying to force "gay marriage" on society instead. If you are going to demand "gay marriage" then I am going to oppose you. I don't believe in gay marriage, I think it's an oxymoron. Marriage is the joining in matrimony of husband and wife, not same-sex couples. 

Now on the matter of "rights and privileges" we're not likely on the same page, because I don't think the government should be doling out rights and privies based on whether or not you are single or a couple. I think everyone should have the same rights and privileges. But for the sake of certain governmental standards which we already have established, we can simply reform language to adopt a benign term for domestic partners, which leaves "marriage" to the individual to define. I'm okay with that, you're okay with that... so why do you refuse to join me in that effort and insist on cramming "gay marriage" down my throat? 

Now, you say you don't think my idea is practical or doable, but your idea is certainly not going to be any better. Half the country is opposed to what you want to do. Here I've given you a solution that you (a gay marriage advocate) and I (a gay marriage opponent) can both live with. You get what you want, I get what I want, and we're both satisfied. I'm sorry, but I fail to see why my solution wouldn't work or wouldn't be wildly popular.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > I have said all along that it is not the government's job to decide who can, and cannot get married.  It is only their job to recognise the validity of the marriage certificate, regardless of who the participants are, and to afford those participants the rights, and privileges that come with that recognition.  I don't even care that it is necessarily called "marriage".  You indicated , originally, that this was your issue.  Fine.  Call it a civil union.  Call it a life partnership.  Call it a carfulflargen, for all I care.  But, when it comes to the rights, and privileges that come to the participants of the arrangement, you call it the same for everyone, and you treat everyone equally when they participate.
> ...


how do you possibly get that out of my position?  I never said anything even close to that.



Boss said:


> Now on the matter of "rights and privileges" we're not likely on the same page, because I don't think the government should be doling out rights and privies based on whether or not you are single or a couple. I think everyone should have the same rights and privileges. But for the sake of certain governmental standards which we already have established, we can simply reform language to adopt a benign term for domestic partners, which leaves "marriage" to the individual to define. I'm okay with that, you're okay with that... so why do you refuse to join me in that effort and insist on cramming "gay marriage" down my throat


Where do you keep getting that I'm cramming "gay marriage" down your throat?  Call it carfulflargen for all I care.  No one ever gets to talk about marriage in civil law again - not gays, and not straights.  Glad we are in agreement.  Lemme know when you have all of the theocrats, and moralists on board with their "marriages" being irrelevant outside of their churches.



Boss said:


> Now, you say you don't think my idea is practical or doable, but your idea is certainly not going to be any better. Half the country is opposed to what you want to do. Here I've given you a solution that you (a gay marriage advocate) and I (a gay marriage opponent) can both live with. You get what you want, I get what I want, and we're both satisfied. I'm sorry, but I fail to see why my solution wouldn't work or wouldn't be wildly popular.


And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement?  I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that *none* of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society.  I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be *impossible*.  By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters.  Lemme know how that works out for ya.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that *none* of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be *impossible*. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.



Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned. 

I still say my solution is much more possible than forcing society to accept something half of society is staunchly opposed to. Will EVERYONE go along with my idea? Nope... not ever going to have anything that is perfect, that all people totally agree with. But since I am about as conservative as they come, and fairly social conservative as well, and I am okay with this, I don't see why others like me would be opposed. But hey... let's put it out there! 

Calling all "morally self-righteous conservatives" out there... let me know what you think? Are you okay with getting government and courts out of the "marriage" business and leaving it to be defined by churches and individuals?


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that *none* of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be *impossible*. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.
> ...


As long as no individual is obligated to accept the validity of someone else's marriage.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that *none* of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be *impossible*. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.
> ...


Except now you're advocating "Separate but equal" - "the people I *approve* of get marriages; everyone else get something else,"  Sorry, Sparky, that ain't how it works.  There are two options, in order to be Constitutionally sound - marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one; I don't care which.  But, you don't get to just *decide* that the government will recognise marriages for the folks you happen to agree with, while everyone else is relegated to whatever non-marriage term you feel like assigning to the "pervs, degenerates, and unworthy".  So, which will it be?  Marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one?  You lemme know, and we'll go from there.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Why would that even be an issue?  Do you, *individually*, treat married folks differently than you do single folks?  If so, please, give me some examples...


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No, I am certainly NOT saying anything "separate but equal" at all. The government is *only* going to recognize a civil contract between two consenting adults of legal age. What people call their partnerships is their business. What people recognize as "marriage" is up to them. How is THAT "separate but equal" in any way?


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

And let's get it fucking clear about what is "constitutionally sound" at this point... the SCOTUS has not ruled that Gay Marriage is a thing. There is no stipulation in the Constitution which allows sexual behaviors to define marriage. Homosexuals are not discriminated against when obtaining a marriage license, but a marriage license only permits a union of husband and wife. You are demanding that a marriage license recognize the union of same-sex partners. This is what people are opposed to and the source of their complaint. I have offered a solution which resolves that dispute to the satisfaction of all involved. If you don't like it, pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as something different.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why are you trying to be difficult? Do you want to resolve the problem or not? Why the hell do you think government has the right to tell you what constitutes marriage?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Ah!  Well, then!  When gays call that partnership marriage, then you will have no problem with that, right?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> And let's get it fucking clear about what is "constitutionally sound" at this point... the SCOTUS has not ruled that Gay Marriage is a thing. There is no stipulation in the Constitution which allows sexual behaviors to define marriage. Homosexuals are not discriminated against when obtaining a marriage license, but a marriage license only permits a union of husband and wife. You are demanding that a marriage license recognize the union of same-sex partners. This is what people are opposed to and the source of their complaint. I have offered a solution which resolves that dispute to the satisfaction of all involved. If you don't like it, pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as something different.



Just to point out...


............. A marriage license means a union of a husband and wife, a husband and a husband, or a wife and a wife in 32 states right now.


>>>>


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Ah!  Well, then!  When gays call that partnership marriage, then you will have no problem with that, right?



I don't care what gays call it, as long as I don't have to call it that and as long as the government isn't telling me I have to call it that.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > And let's get it fucking clear about what is "constitutionally sound" at this point... the SCOTUS has not ruled that Gay Marriage is a thing. There is no stipulation in the Constitution which allows sexual behaviors to define marriage. Homosexuals are not discriminated against when obtaining a marriage license, but a marriage license only permits a union of husband and wife. You are demanding that a marriage license recognize the union of same-sex partners. This is what people are opposed to and the source of their complaint. I have offered a solution which resolves that dispute to the satisfaction of all involved. If you don't like it, pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as something different.
> ...



Yes... that's been pointed out already. That still doesn't mean it's constitutionally sound.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> *The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people.*
> A simple joint partnership contract solves the problem. They have NO compelling interest in what type of intimate relationship that may or may not involve.


Private entities don't have to honor your private 'joint partnership" contract. This means you're open to many forms of discrimination and there's nothing the State can do about it.


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Except now you're advocating "Separate but equal" - *"the people I approve of get marriages; everyone else get something else*,"  *Sorry, Sparky, that ain't how it works*.  There are two options, in order to be Constitutionally sound - marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one; I don't care which.  But, you don't get to just *decide* that the government will recognise marriages for the folks you happen to agree with, while everyone else is relegated to whatever non-marriage term you feel like assigning to the "pervs, degenerates, and unworthy".  So, which will it be?  Marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one?  You lemme know, and we'll go from there.


 
Hey "Sparky", do you approve of polygamy marriage?  Incest marriage?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Ah!  Well, then!  When gays call that partnership marriage, then you will have no problem with that, right?
> ...


That's just it.  The government isn't telling you what *you* have to call it; only what it is going to recognise it as for the purpose of the benefits that come with the partnership known as marriage.

Now, obviously, if you happen to be the administrator of a hospital, then the government *is* telling you, regardless of what you want to call it, that the husband of this man on life support has the exact same right to decide what treatment he gets as the wife of the man who is on life support in the next room.

That's all the government is telling *you*.  The government doesn't give a rats ass what you call the partnership - *they* consider it a marriage, and give the participants all of the considerations accordingly.  They do not require you to call it anything.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Except now you're advocating "Separate but equal" - *"the people I approve of get marriages; everyone else get something else*,"  *Sorry, Sparky, that ain't how it works*.  There are two options, in order to be Constitutionally sound - marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one; I don't care which.  But, you don't get to just *decide* that the government will recognise marriages for the folks you happen to agree with, while everyone else is relegated to whatever non-marriage term you feel like assigning to the "pervs, degenerates, and unworthy".  So, which will it be?  Marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one?  You lemme know, and we'll go from there.
> ...


Do not care any more about those marriages than I do gay marriage.  Why do you?


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people.*
> ...



Private entities can discriminate now, as long as it's not on basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually, *Private entities* can even discriminate on those grounds.  I, *as a private citizen*, have every right to refuse to sell you my car, simply because I don't like your "Bible-thumping, hymn-singing, Christian ass"!  However, when I am *the owner* of "Christ Haters Motors", as a public accommodation, I *can't* refuse to do business with you based on protected classifications.  That's the difference between private entities, and public accommodations.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Again... My solution remedies the hospital situation. As long as you have the civil union contract, you are the civil partner. Where this has been an issue is in states not recognizing gay marriage, where a gay partner is not given consideration because the hospital is legally obligated to give that consideration to "spouse" or next of kin. If there is no spouse, they can't consider anything but next of kin. The CU contract takes care of that, the CU partner is effectively the spouse.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...



True. That's basically what I meant.


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Do not care any more about those marriages than I do gay marriage.  Why do you?


 For the sake of the children involved or mandated to be legally adopted out to them once the ink is dry...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Except you only want to require those people whose partnership you don't agree with to have to make do with the CU.  straight couples can keep right on getting marriage licenses if they like.  and you don't want to see how that is "separate but equal".  Sorry, you're a hypocrite.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Except you only want to require those people whose partnership you don't agree with to have to make do with the CU.  straight couples can keep right on getting marriage licenses if they like.  and you don't want to see how that is "separate but equal".  Sorry, you're a hypocrite.



No, that's not what I proposed or what I said I wanted. There would no longer be "marriage licenses" at all... *NONE...* they no longer exist... got it? Are we clear on that? In the place of those, the governments would *ONLY* issue contracts to any two consenting parties of legal age.

Now... In the case of people who are ALREADY married, who ALREADY have a "marriage license" whether it's a relatively new Gay Marriage license or the old fashioned regular ones, THOSE people would not have to go to the courthouse and obtain some new CU contract to remain "married" to each other, we would simply "grandfather" those people in, and their "marriage license" would become de facto "civil union contracts" for the purpose of this transition. That's the ONLY case you'd have something different, and it would ONLY be to accomodate those who already have a marriage license. Have I made this clear enough now?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Do not care any more about those marriages than I do gay marriage.  Why do you?
> ...


Really???  You wanna take the "moral high ground" as a heterosexual, "for the children"?  Shall I post the pictures of Britney Spears?  How about Newt Gingrich, and his multiple marriages? Or maybe John McCain?  You know, if you're that worried about children being raised in a morally questionable atmosphere, I think you might wanna start a little closer to home than the homosexual community.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> For the sake of the children involved or mandated to be legally adopted out to them once the ink is dry...



Let me address the issue of adoption here, since it hasn't been mentioned in this argument. Adoption agencies are not bound by any standard when it comes to "married" or not, they evaluate potential adoptive parents (or parent) to determine suitability. That would not change. If a same-sex couple wanted to adopt, they would have to meet the criteria of the agency like everyone else. The fact that they had a CU contract would have no bearing, just as the fact that someone has a "marriage license" has no bearing now.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Private entities can discriminate now, as long as it's not on basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.


Or marital status. Martial Status is currently one of the federaly protected classes and no, private entities cannot discriminate against you on the basis of your marital statues.  This comes into play most with fair housing disputes,  but also occasionally arises in employment discrimination when an employer wants someone with fewer personal obligations, or when the employer doesn't want to pay a higher share of insurance for a family plan vs a single plan for an unmarried applicant. 

"Get the government out of marriage" is the elimination of a Federaly protected class.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Except you only want to require those people whose partnership you don't agree with to have to make do with the CU.  straight couples can keep right on getting marriage licenses if they like.  and you don't want to see how that is "separate but equal".  Sorry, you're a hypocrite.
> ...


Then you *are* suggesting exactly what I said you are, and you insisted you weren't:


> Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned.


Marriages *won't* fall under any kind of civil contracts, because, as far as secular, civil society is concerned, they don't exist.  Sure, you can *call* your arrangement with your female life partner a "marriage" all you want.  Guess what?  Without a *Civil Union Contract*, that partnership is meaningless.  Marriage would be relegated to the same irrelevance as baptism, or confirmation - it only has meaning within the church.  I have no problem with that.  Like I have repeatedly said; go ahead, and get the theocrats, and moralists to agree to that.   Lemme know how it works out for ya.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Again... My solution remedies the hospital situation. As long as you have the civil union contract, you are the civil partner. Where this has been an issue is in states not recognizing gay marriage, where a gay partner is not given consideration because the hospital is legally obligated to give that consideration to "spouse" or next of kin. If there is no spouse, they can't consider anything but next of kin. The CU contract takes care of that, the CU partner is effectively the spouse.


Hospitals have always been governed by private policy and that policy has traditionally been in favor of anyone the patient wants to see. The rare exeptions pro-SSM brought to the spotlight are of patients in critical care, and then the actions of one employee just being a dick, not the Hospital's official action.

Also, please understand that hospitals today retain the right to deny anyone they want. That you're married to the patient gives you no special pass. The hospital can deny you, the patient can deny you, and the indivigual doctor has the final word on any visitors.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Private entities can discriminate now, as long as it's not on basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.
> ...



No it's not because as I said, the CU contract would replace marriage licenses. So anything that legally binds to "marriage" now, would become bound by "CU contract" then. Private entities CAN discriminate, as Czern said, on ANY basis. A "private entity" is an individual or a club or organization. A business or corporation is a public entity, and in most cases, they can discriminate as well, as long as it's not violating the CRA. The CRA does not protect marital class.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> No it's not because as I said, the CU contract would replace marriage licenses.


The existing license is a contract. Replacing it with an identical contract of a different name changes nothing but the name. Whatever grievences you claim under the existing contract will continue to exist under your new contract.

All you're doing is changing the name and that's a complete waste of time & money.



Boss said:


> The CRA does not protect marital class.


The existing marriage license doesn't protect marital status, either. That's the Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No, you said I was calling for "separate but equal" and that is wrong. I've not said or implied any such thing. People would still get married. Churches would still perform weddings. Even GAY weddings, if they wanted to. The only thing that changes is government recognition of the civil domestic partnership. Married people are civil partners already, they don't need a new document to confirm that. If you are already married, nothing changes. Your marriage isn't dissolved or rendered meaningless. Your old marriage license simply becomes a de facto civil union contract. Any FUTURE marriage would have to obtain a CU contract instead of a marriage license. The CU contract would be available to people who wanted to get married, whether gay or straight, or just two people who wanted to enter into a partnership with each other for whatever reason. Government would make no delineation on that. 




> > Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned.
> 
> 
> Marriages *won't* fall under any kind of civil contracts, because, as far as secular, civil society is concerned, they don't exist.  Sure, you can *call* your arrangement with your female life partner a "marriage" all you want.  Guess what?  Without a *Civil Union Contract*, that partnership is meaningless.  Marriage would be relegated to the same irrelevance as baptism, or confirmation - it only has meaning within the church.  I have no problem with that.  Like I have repeatedly said; go ahead, and get the theocrats, and moralists to agree to that.   Lemme know how it works out for ya.



Again, you are trying to complicate this and distort what I've proposed. Civil society would certainly still recognize marriage. We're not talking about what society does, we're talking about GOVERNMENT. No one is talking about making marriage irrelevant. Government would no longer issue a "marriage license" and would issue a "civil union contract" in place of that. Already existing marriage licenses would simply become CU contracts in the eyes of government. No one has to "give up" anything.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Again, all you're doing is changeing the name. I don't see what that's supposed to accomplish.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not because as I said, the CU contract would replace marriage licenses.
> ...



Again, people who have already obtained a "marriage license" wouldn't have to change anything. Their "marriage license" would simply become a CU contract. We'd only have CU contracts going forward. If you wanted to "get married" you'd simply go to the courthouse and get a CU contract instead of a marriage license. OR... if you were a person caring for an aging parent, or two spinster sisters, you could get a CU contract and form a domestic partnership for tax reasons or insurance, etc. OR.... if you were a gay couple wanting to play house... whatever the fuck you wanted to do in your domestic partnership, the government wouldn't care. The CU contract would be all-inclusive, regardless of the nature of the relationship. 

*The existing marriage license doesn't protect marital status, either. That's the Civil Rights Act.*

I'm sorry but this doesn't even make sense to me. The CRA does NOT protect marital status.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The *Civil Rights Act of 1964* (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Again, all you're doing is changeing the name. I don't see what that's supposed to accomplish.



It removes government from the role of determining what individuals define as marriage. It allows churches and religious people to maintain the sanctity of traditional marriage. It allows gay couples the "rights and benefits" they seek as domestic partners. In essence, it resolves this issue once and for all, and we all get what we want. And that's what it accomplishes.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Again, people who have already obtained a "marriage license" wouldn't have to change anything. Their "marriage license" would simply become a CU contract. We'd only have CU contracts going forward. If you wanted to "get married" you'd simply go to the courthouse and get a CU contract instead of a marriage license. OR... if you were a person caring for an aging parent, or two spinster sisters, you could get a CU contract and form a domestic partnership for tax reasons or insurance, etc.
> OR.... if you were a gay couple wanting to play house... whatever the fuck you wanted to do in your domestic partnership, the government wouldn't care. The CU contract would be all-inclusive, regardless of the nature of the relationship.
> 
> *The existing marriage license doesn't protect marital status, either. That's the Civil Rights Act.*
> ...


So you basicaly just want anyone to be able to marry anyone and you think repackaging open-marriage under a diferent name will acomplish that.

Isn't what you're advocating exactly the slippery-slope social Conservatives say would happen, and social Liberals deny would happen?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 31, 2014)

Boss said:

'Again, people who have already obtained a "marriage license" wouldn't have to change anything. Their "marriage license" would simply become a CU contract. We'd only have CU contracts going forward. If you wanted to "get married" you'd simply go to the courthouse and get a CU contract instead of a marriage license.'

Which would be un-Constitutional, a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as 'separate but equal' is still repugnant to the Constitution.


----------



## Boss (Oct 31, 2014)

Pezz said:


> So you basicaly just want anyone to be able to marry anyone and you think repackaging open-marriage under a diferent name will acomplish that.
> 
> Isn't what you're advocating exactly the slippery-slope social Conservatives say would happen, and social Liberals deny would happen?



For me, "marriage" is forever and always going to be the holy union of a husband and wife. Nothing else. That said, I am not intolerant of the views other people hold on this issue. I do not believe government has the right to establish what we call marriage, gay or traditional. I don't believe anyone has the right to use government and courts to impose their views on the rest of society, whether they are religious people wanting traditional marriage only or gay people wanting gay marriage. 

Now I don't know what you mean by "open-marriage" ...that term doesn't make sense to me. The government has no reason to know the nature of our personal relationships. If we need to have some kind of distinction between people who are single and people who are domestic couples, the CU contract fulfills that need without regard for the nature of the relationship itself. And that's how it should be. Let the people decide for themselves what "marriage" is. CU contracts would not be available to multiple parties, if you already have an existing contract you couldn't obtain another. They wouldn't apply to children or animals, or anyone not consenting. And most importantly, they wouldn't be issued on basis of sexual behavior or intimacy of the relationship. The BONUS is, these contracts could be useful for a variety of situations unrelated to "marriage" or intimate relationships. Like I said, a person caring for an aging parent, two spinster sisters, to platonic buddies, momma and her 34-year-old son... whatever! As long as it's two consenting adults who don't already have a civil partnership. "Divorce" would become "contract dissolution" and handled much the same as it currently is.


----------



## Boss (Nov 1, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 'Again, people who have already obtained a "marriage license" wouldn't have to change anything. Their "marriage license" would simply become a CU contract. We'd only have CU contracts going forward. If you wanted to "get married" you'd simply go to the courthouse and get a CU contract instead of a marriage license.'
> 
> Which would be un-Constitutional, a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as 'separate but equal' is still repugnant to the Constitution.



There is no _*separate but equal*_, and I don't know where everyone is getting that here. Can you fucking explain this to me? There wouldn't be TWO different things! There would *ONLY* BE CU CONTRACTS!  All current "marriage licenses" would instantly _*POOF*_ into CU contracts! I don't fucking know how to explain that any differently. I'm not trying to say that people could still go get a goddamn marriage license just like they always have! Marriage licenses would *no longer exist... *so WHAT THE FUCK is "separate" about it? 

I mean.... seriously people... we're not going to dissolve 100 million marriages all over the country, gay and traditional, and make people have to go to the courthouse and get a new CU contract so they won't be "livin' in sin!" We simply say that all current marriage licenses are de facto CU contracts, and that's that. DONE! Any NEW domestic partnerships, whether traditional marriage, gay marriage or platonic buddyhood, would need to get a CU contract... or NOT, just like, some people don't opt to get a marriage license now. 

We're talking about a change in how government recognizes the domestic partnership. That's all. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or Equal Protection.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> For me, "marriage" is....


Subjective definitions are meaningles. We're discussing public policy.




Boss said:


> Now I don't know what you mean by "open-marriage" ...that term doesn't make sense to me.


I had said "anyone can marry anyone". 




Boss said:


> The government has no reason to know the nature of our personal relationships.


The government's interest in marriage is the raising & socializing of children, and promoting stable relationships. Both affect economic and domestic health and stability.  If you don't want to involve the government in your union then just don't get a marriage license. 




Boss said:


> If we need to have some kind of distinction between people who are single and people who are domestic couples, the CU contract fulfills that need without regard for the nature of the relationship itself. And that's how it should be. Let the people decide for themselves what "marriage" is. CU contracts would not be available to multiple parties, if you already have an existing contract you couldn't obtain another. They wouldn't apply to children or animals, or anyone not consenting. And most importantly, they wouldn't be issued on basis of sexual behavior or intimacy of the relationship. The BONUS is, these contracts could be useful for a variety of situations unrelated to "marriage" or intimate relationships. Like I said, a person caring for an aging parent, two spinster sisters, to platonic buddies, momma and her 34-year-old son... whatever! As long as it's two consenting adults who don't already have a civil partnership. "Divorce" would become "contract dissolution" and handled much the same as it currently is.


So again you just want anyone to be able to marry anyone and you think repackaging marriage under a diferent name will accomplish that.

How is that not exactly what social conservatives have been warning of all these years?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> And let's get it fucking clear about what is "constitutionally sound" at this point... the SCOTUS has not ruled that Gay Marriage is a thing. There is no stipulation in the Constitution which allows sexual behaviors to define marriage..



There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all.

And marriage is not defined by sexual behavior. 

The Supreme Court has not ruled yet- but multiple Federal Courts have- and SINCE the Supreme Court declined to overturn the lower courts rulings, in 31 states,  laws against same gender marriage have been ruled to be unconstitutional.

You can stamp your feet and complain about it, but the only legal recourse you have is to get change the Constitution. 

That is called the Amendment process.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Who is 'we'?

It is your idea- and you have no actual support for your idea. 

If you want to sell your idea- then you best get busy. Because at the rate things are going, same gender marriage will likely be legal in another 10 states before the end of 2015.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Do not care any more about those marriages than I do gay marriage.  Why do you?
> ...


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You do get that what you propose will actually change nothing at all, right?  People are still going to have ceremonies that they call weddings - regardless of their sexuality.  People are still going to call themselves married - regardless of their sexuality.  So, other than replacing the "marriage license" with the "Civil union Contract:, what, exactly do you propose that your huge idea is going to change?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 1, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It's not so much seeking to change anything but to help facilitate the hatred of same-sex couples.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 1, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> You do get that what you propose will actually change nothing at all, right?  People are still going to have ceremonies that they call weddings - regardless of their sexuality.  People are still going to call themselves married - regardless of their sexuality.  So, other than replacing the "marriage license" with the "Civil union Contract:, what, exactly do you propose that your huge idea is going to change?


He wants to remove all the restrictions against marital status, blood relation, etc.


----------



## Boss (Nov 1, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > You do get that what you propose will actually change nothing at all, right?  People are still going to have ceremonies that they call weddings - regardless of their sexuality.  People are still going to call themselves married - regardless of their sexuality.  So, other than replacing the "marriage license" with the "Civil union Contract:, what, exactly do you propose that your huge idea is going to change?
> ...



Nope. I want to remove government from the business of deciding what we can call marriage. From the government standpoint, you'd either have a contracted partner or not. You're free to call marriage whatever you want. 

Both you and Czern are opposed to my idea because you seek to have our government dictate what we define as marriage. Syriusly thinks gay marriage will sweep the nation by next year, C_Clayton thinks the issue has been constitutionally settled matter of law... yet there are probably enough evangelicals alone to ratify a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. 

So I guess we're going to have to rumble. This is all going to have to come to a head and someone is going home unhappy. I am merely presenting an alternative that gives every side what they want, but as we see, the extremist elements aren't going to budge. They've spent too much time on their banners to drop them now.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


....and then Boss stomped his foot and slammed the door.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


They don't now - or, at least, they *didn't* before all you moralists went running to your state congresses in the 90's and had them add the words "one man, one woman" to the definition.  And guess what?  One we have that silliness squashed, we'll be *back* to the government not telling us what marriage is.  Problem solved.

But, you see, that's not really what you want.  You *want* the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".  However, since you can see that that obviously is not going to happen, now you're looking for any way possible to keep the verbiage you added in the law.  Well, sucks to be you.  You lost this fight.  Better luck next time.  By the next Presidential election, those stupid laws will be struck down in all 50 states, and everyone can go back to calling marriage whatever the hell they would like to call it, and gay people will be able to enjoy the exact same benefits as straight people.

Thank you for playing.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> They don't now - or, at least, they *didn't* before all you moralists went running to your state congresses in the 90's and had them add the words "one man, one woman" to the definition.  And guess what?  One we have that silliness squashed, we'll be *back* to the government not telling us what marriage is.  Problem solved.



Actually, it's more like "problem just begun"...

_"More importantly and to the legal point, forcing states to allow gay marriage is forcing a state to incentivize a home where 100% of the time, one of the natural parents of children in it is missing. It incentivizes homes where children will never get experience with the opposite gender as a parent to them. 

It incentivizes a home where a child who happens to be the opposite gender of the "gay parents" learns to see him or herself as "unnecessary as part of a family unit". That self-image a child may carry into his adult life. The child internalizes this message as YOU are unnecessary. They lack the nuances of adults in understanding complex and weird arrangements. They tend to see things in black and white. Things that are obvious.

Marriage is to be considered on behalf of children FIRST and adults second. In that order. And that is because children cannot vote or hire powerful lobbiests to promote their welfare in this legal battle, this question. So judges have to err on the side of caution where they and the state's rights to protect them are concerned. 

Also, with gay marriage will come gay lawsuits against christian charity orphanages. It's already starting where these orphanages have seen the writing on the wall and are closing their doors to these unfortunate kids, after 100s of years of being in the business of caring for their welbeing. This means that secular orphanages will open, where "openly gay" people will be running them, guaranteed. See my signature or a gay pride parade near you for why this is an imminent danger to children."_


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > They don't now - or, at least, they *didn't* before all you moralists went running to your state congresses in the 90's and had them add the words "one man, one woman" to the definition.  And guess what?  One we have that silliness squashed, we'll be *back* to the government not telling us what marriage is.  Problem solved.
> ...


Again...I stopped reading right here.  So long as you live in a world where Britney Spears, Kim Kardashian, the octomom, and *this lady*:



are all perfectly acceptable parenting options, just because they happen to *fuck the right gender partner* for your taste, you have absolutely *zero* credibility when it comes to discussing what is healthy for bringing up children.

Come talk to me when you have cleaned up *your side of the street*, then you might have something to say about raising children that is worthwhile listening to.

Buh bye.


----------



## Boss (Nov 1, 2014)

Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution. 

So be it. 

Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man. 

Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> [. I am merely presenting an alternative that gives every side what they want, but as we see, the extremist elements aren't going to budge. They've spent too much time on their banners to drop them now.



You have presented an alternative that you claim gives everyone what they want.

There is no indication that people from either side of the marriage equality would agree with you.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.
> 
> So be it.
> 
> ...



Well I believe you have the right to advocate for any Constitutional Amendment you want to- I won't wish you luck- but I think that it clearly shows what you really want.

You could have been advocating for a Constitutional Amendment for what you claim is your real preference- but instead you advocate for a Constitutional Amendment for what you really want.

You are going to be sorely disappointed.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > They don't now - or, at least, they *didn't* before all you moralists went running to your state congresses in the 90's and had them add the words "one man, one woman" to the definition.  And guess what?  One we have that silliness squashed, we'll be *back* to the government not telling us what marriage is.  Problem solved.
> ...



Ah once again from bat guano crazy.....

a) There are no laws that require married people to have children.
b) There are no laws that require parents to get married.
c) There are no laws that require married parents to stay together.
d) There are not even any laws that require a non-custodial 'natural' parent to even 'parent'.

When I see any of the homophobes actually concerned about the majority of children- rather than using children as a method to discriminate against homosexuals- then I will believe that they might actually care about kids.

But the reality is the problem is with parents- parents who abandon their children, parents who divorce and neglect their children, parents who abuse their children.

And the majority by far of those parents are heterosexual, 'natural' parents.

That is not an attack on heterosexual parents- I am one myself- but I am pointing out the reality- complaining about 'gay parenting' doesn't accomplish a thing to protect the vast majority of children in America


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.
> 
> So be it.
> 
> ...



 you couldn't get that passed back in the early 2000s, no way in hell it would pass now. Suck it up, it's over. The tipping point has been WAY tipped.


----------



## mdk (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.
> 
> So be it.
> 
> ...



What makes you think the GOP has the clout to even get such an amendment passed? Even if they did have the political capital I highly doubt they would spend it on such an issue.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 1, 2014)

mdk said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.
> ...



They might have been able to do so 10 years ago- but not a chance they would now.

The effort would take over their platform, and would be doomed to failure.


----------



## mdk (Nov 1, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



They couldn't even get that done ten years ago when gay marriage and civil unions bans were in fashion. The GOP is powerless concerning this issue. It is a losing issue for them now. The anti-gay folks will gnash their teeth and whine but the rest of the nation will shrug their shoulders, sigh, and move on with their lives. They are becoming a minority so I suspect them to become more rabid as this issue progresses.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:

“Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.
So be it.
Look out for the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a woman and man.”

This makes no sense and is unsurprisingly ignorant.

There is no “your solution,” there is only settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence which prohibits the states from denying American citizens equal protection of (equal access to) the law absent a rational basis, objective documented evidence in support, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end. Measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate fail to meet those three criteria, and are un-Constitutional accordingly.

Consequently, there is nothing to 'amend,' as the Constitution affords protections to all classes of persons including race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, where gay Americans are among the many other protected classes of persons.

Boss said:

“Then Gay people can go back to having perverted sex in private again.”

And this is an example of the unwarranted animus toward gay Americans the Constitution prohibits, where such a desire to disadvantage same-sex couples is irrational, devoid of objective, documented evidence in support, and fails to pursue a proper legislative end, seeking only to make gay Americans “unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” _Romer v. Evans_ (1996).


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 1, 2014)

Boss said:


> Okay, so you're like the Palestinians, nothing is ever going to resolve this except YOUR solution.
> 
> So be it.
> 
> ...




That boat sailed already, a Constitutional Amendment was tried and failed in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2013.  It couldn't even pass a decade ago when there was more support than there is now.


>>>>


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 1, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> You *want* the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".


That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries. You can't grasp why, we get it. The rest of the world does. 

In gay marriage states there's no reason now to prevent polygamy or anything else anyone wants. Who's to decide? The homosexual activists for everybody else? That would be stupid. So it is time for those states to get out of the marriage business.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > You *want* the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".
> ...



That is an amazing display of lack of comprehension of the law.....thank you.

gay marriage doesn't equal polygamy

How do we know- well we have almost 2 thousand years of polygamous marriages in some countries- and no gay marriage. If gay marriage leads to polygamy....why wouldn't polygamy lead to gay marriage?

The basic argument for same gender marriage is that States cannot explain what the state interest is in preventing homosexuals to marry is.
You are assuming that you and the States can't come up with any better reason to oppose Polygamy other than "its icky".


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > You *want* the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".
> ...



A few countries have been marrying gays for over a decade. Which ones also perform Polygamist marriages? None you say? Uh huh...slippery slope fallacy fail.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 2, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That's an amazing lack of comprehension, period. But I'm talking to someone that can't figure out the unique relationship opposite genders have and the value to the species. No one said gay marriage equals polygamy, your brain is too far gone to see straight apparently. No pun intended.

I didn't oppose polygamy and said nothing about it being icky. We have much more than two thousand years of polygamy, it's existed as far back as recorded history. But for the same reason, male/female, opposite genders coming together for a lifelong bond. That is until relatively recently where divorce became much more common. 

States don't need a reason to oppose same sex marriages any more than they need to oppose polygamy, that's the point. Most people want traditional marriage, in most states that right has been taken from them. 

So IF that's the way it is then that state needs to get out of marriage altogether, it no longer is representing the people but a special interest group. Government for the people, by the people and all that.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 2, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> A few countries have been marrying gays for over a decade. Which ones also perform Polygamist marriages? None you say? Uh huh...slippery slope fallacy fail.


The slippery slope is in your head. There's no logical reason for them to not have polygamy, it's about caving in to the demands of a special interest group. If enough people lobby hard enough for it polygamy will be legal. What argument could you use against them?


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > You *want* the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".
> ...


By, "rest of the world", I presume you mean the *third world*, since almost every industrialized nation in the world - Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, even Uruguay, all recognize same sex partnerships (what many reasonable people even call *marriages*).  You really should be careful not to over reach with your hyperbole.



Iceweasel said:


> In gay marriage states there's no reason now to prevent polygamy or anything else anyone wants. Who's to decide? The homosexual activists for everybody else? That would be stupid. So it is time for those states to get out of the marriage business.



I couldn't agree more.  *If* polygamists, or anyone else show up looking to get married, it'll be fun watching the heads of you moralists explode.  In the meantime, I'm happy celebrating the victories of actual people.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > A few countries have been marrying gays for over a decade. Which ones also perform Polygamist marriages? None you say? Uh huh...slippery slope fallacy fail.
> ...



If 'enough people lobby hard enough for it polygamy will be legal'- well lobbying implies legislative or the vote of the people. 

If you folk manage to convince enough legislators to legalize polygamy or convince enough people to vote to make polygamous relationships marriage, then I will accept it.

What makes you want legal polygamous marriage so much?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> [
> States don't need a reason to oppose same sex marriages any more than they need to oppose polygamy, that's the point. Most people want traditional marriage, in most states that right has been taken from them.
> .



You have that absolutely backwards.

As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage. States can only deny that right when it can provide a compelling reason to deny that right. 

And people still have every right to 'traditional marriage'- no one will be preventing a 'man and  a woman' from marrying- so their rights are not infringed on in anyway because Bob and Bill can also legally marry.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> So IF that's the way it is then that state needs to get out of marriage altogether, it no longer is representing the people but a special interest group. Government for the people, by the people and all that.



No more than the government is representing the NRA when courts overturn a gun law voted on by the people.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 2, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I understand that you are a retard so I'll post my comment again and you can read slower or have someone explain it:  "That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries." 

I haven't said a goddamn thing about morality. Go play in your sandbox until mom gets home.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 2, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> No more than the government is representing the NRA when courts overturn a gun law voted on by the people.


Huh?


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 2, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> You have that absolutely backwards.
> 
> As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage. States can only deny that right when it can provide a compelling reason to deny that right.
> 
> And people still have every right to 'traditional marriage'- no one will be preventing a 'man and  a woman' from marrying- so their rights are not infringed on in anyway because Bob and Bill can also legally marry.


You are backwards. If it was a constitutional issue there would be no state decisions.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You have that absolutely backwards.
> ...



I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.

You are welcome to stare at the trough and not drink as long as you want.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 2, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.
> 
> You are welcome to stare at the trough and not drink as long as you want.


You couldn't find the water on a beach.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.
> ...



Well that would be because the water is next to the beach- not on it.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2014)

> As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage.



Courts have pointed out no such thing. If marriage is a right, there are literally millions and millions of people in America who are being denied their rights. It means that females are constitutionally obligated to date any male who wants to date them and not deny their right to marry on the basis of discrimination. Obviously, this is absurd. 

The right in question is ACCESS to marriage. But "marriage" is the union of a husband and wife.Gay people wanting a same sex union to be "marriage" is a different animal altogether. It's technically no different than a necrophiliac wanting living-dead unions to be "marriage."


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 2, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


See what I mean.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2014)

In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here. 

Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming. 

Because this appears to be on it's way and nothing anyone can do about it, we see an often insulting level of smug confidence from gay marriage advocates. What they completely fail to realize is, this is an issue where the sheer numbers don't fall in their favor. They simply don't have the numbers needed to ensconce gay marriage into our constitutional lexicon at this time, and are not likely to have those numbers in the future. 

It can be more closely identified with the ERA movement from the 70s, where the same smug confidence existed in progressives who burned their bras and cheered on Women's Rights. Now... where has that gone since it failed in the 70s? We've passed a series of law reforms and bills to ensure gender equality and fair treatment, but without having to radically change the constitution. 

The most grim aspect of the details as to why Gay Marriage will not prevail, is the way our process works and the sheer number of evangelical voters there are. What you need first, is 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I doubt you can get 2/3 of EITHER house. You have very high support in very liberal areas of the country. Otherwise, you only have moderate support where you need 2/3 and in some places you have virtually NO support. So the House will likely never forsake the evangelicals and go for a Gay Marriage Act, and the Senate is completely impossible because your liberal states only have 2 votes each, same as everyone else. Look at that popular RED/BLUE map to see how that will work out. 

Okay... so now IF you manged to somehow get the Congressional requirement, the Amendment then moves to the ratification process. There, you'll need 2/3 of the states holding specific balloted initiatives to ratify. Gay marriage has struggled to even get majority votes in any ballot initiative, and that is in the most liberal states. In MANY of those states you crow about same-sex marriage now being legal, it was done by courts or legislatures and not by the people. Many of those people are quite pissed off about that. The states where this has been crammed down their throat are not likely going to ratify your Amendment. 

This leaves us with the only possibility you have, which is something along the lines of what I have suggested and you have rejected. A Congressional Act to slip the ring off the finger of government and "marriage" where it can be returned intact to the people and churches where it belongs. Such an Act would also be problematic for the same reasons mentioned previously, but it is much more likely than a Gay Marriage Amendment or Act.


----------



## Iceweasel (Nov 2, 2014)

Boss said:


> In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.
> 
> Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.
> 
> ...


Great post. The other thing is that race and gender are not a choice or preference. Religion is but religious freedom is one of the primary driving factors to the US being founded. 

Human sexuality is very complex, as complex as people are. Many gays led heterosexual lives at one point, some had kids. Some people can swing either way. Some at the same time! To categorize sexual orientation along with the others would be a huge departure and opens a Pandora's box that can't be closed. 

It should be a state issue but the states should just get out of marriage. anyone can marry anyone. Oddly gays don't seem to be in favor of it, which leads me to believe the acceptance as an alternative lifestyle is the real reason.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > A few countries have been marrying gays for over a decade. Which ones also perform Polygamist marriages? None you say? Uh huh...slippery slope fallacy fail.
> ...


Incorrect.

It does in fact fail as a slippery slope fallacy.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, unlike three or more persons. Consequently nothing is being 'changed' with regard to marriage law by acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, where allowing three or more persons to marry would require a change in marriage law.

Your mistake is to perceive acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples as some sort of 'special accommodation, when in fact it is not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You have that absolutely backwards.
> ...


Wrong.

It is indeed a Constitutional issue because the states made the decision to ignore the law and enact measures hostile to gay Americans, decisions repugnant to the Constitution.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


The only retard here is the one who claimed that "the whole world" opposes same sex marriage, and got schooled, and then expected everyone to just forget what he said, as he restated his false claim that same sex marriage was banned in "all 50 states". It wasn't banned in *any* state, until 1996.  And why was that?  Oh!  that's right.  That was because the moralists all started shitting themselves because those icky, icky gays were crashing their marriage gig, so they all ran off, and had the laws rewritten to exclude them.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 2, 2014)

Boss said:


> > As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Courts have pointed out no such thing. If marriage is a right, there are literally millions and millions of people in America who are being denied their rights. It means that females are constitutionally obligated to date any male who wants to date them and not deny their right to marry on the basis of discrimination. Obviously, this is absurd.."



Here is what the courts have said:

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

You can pick as many nits as you want- Americans have the legal right to marry without unjustified government intereference- just like we have a right to own a gun.

Our right own a gun, like our right to marry, doesn't mean we are guaranteed either a gun or a marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 2, 2014)

Boss said:


> In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.
> 
> Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.
> 
> ...



Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going. Same gender marriage is legal in 31 states and the District of Columbia. 

Absent a Supreme Court decision overturning those laws, or a Constitutional Amendment, those 31 states will continue to have marriage equality.  

The possibility you have suggested has not even a glimmer of support by either side, whereas there is a greater likelihood of additional states having marriage equality.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.
> ...



I can't speak for gays, but oddly enough heterosexuals aren't in favor of it either. Which leads me to believe preventing equality for homosexuals is the real reason for the proposal.


----------



## ShackledNation (Nov 2, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Allowing gay couples to marry does not force morals on anyone. Prohibiting them from doing so does. Again, your solution is entirely semantic and the exact same practical result will come about with same-sex marriage bans overturned, as they should be.

The reality is that you do not want gay couples receiving any type of legal status for their relationships. You know that renaming marriage licenses to civil unions across the board is not going to happen, which is precisely why you use that as your argument.

There are three possible results:
1. Same-sex marriage licenses are issued, along with opposite-sex marriage licenses.
2. Same-sex marriages are prohibited, with only opposite-sex marriages legally recognized.
3. The marriage license is abolished and renamed (as per your argument).

Can you tell me which of the above three results you think is the _*worst*_? Why?


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.
> ...



Well, no... you actually CAN'T just keep doing what has been done. The people in those states have the right to undo what you've done, which is NOT marriage equality. My solution is the closest thing you'll ever have to what you want. It is actually the anti-gay-marriage people who have enough political influence to pass a congressional act, and they have already done so once. DOMA. Now, the courts took the teeth out of it, just as happened with many other Acts of Congress through the years... the Civil Rights movement saw more cases of this than anything. But the people just keep on and eventually they get something satisfactory to the vast majority.


----------



## ShackledNation (Nov 2, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No they don't. When a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the legislature cannot just pass the law again. Perhaps you do not understand. When something is unconstitutional, the people and the states have no right to do it. Ever. Period.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 2, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.


----------



## Boss (Nov 2, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> No they don't. When a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the legislature cannot just pass the law again. Perhaps you do not understand. When something is unconstitutional, the people and the states have no right to do it. Ever. Period.



Oh, but they DO and I can cite numerous examples of it. The same exact law can't be passed again, that makes no sense and isn't what I said. Whatever the court found to be the problem for why the law wasn't constitutional will be changed by Act of Congress, and we go at it again. And again, if needed. 

This was the case with civil rights, as we'd been passing civil rights acts since 1865 in America. It took numerous attempts before one stuck. Congress would pass them, courts would neuter them, people would petition for redress, congress would act. This happened over and over again. The SCOTUS simply doesn't have final say on Law-of-the-Land, nor does their interpretation of the Constitution. 

Remember this... it's Boss' lesson of the day in U.S. Government... The People ultimately have final say. Period.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 2, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > No they don't. When a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the legislature cannot just pass the law again. Perhaps you do not understand. When something is unconstitutional, the people and the states have no right to do it. Ever. Period.
> ...


yeah...that presumes that there is a *will* to "keep trying".  I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar.  I dunno, Boss.  There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.

I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to *deny* a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> a) yes it is marriage equality and
> b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
> c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.



No, it's NOT marriage inequality. That would be if when you went to get a marriage license, they ask if you were a homo and denied you one on that basis... that isn't happening anywhere. 

Marriage is a certain thing, and you wish for marriage to be something different. We do not redefine things simply by claiming a right to them. I have the right to live, but I can't claim I have the right to kill every person who comes in my proximity because I believe that is within my right to live. I have a right to be secure in my property, but I can't put up a wall and build a nuclear weapons plant. I have the right to be an electrician, but I don't have the right to be an electrician with a plumbers license I'm not qualified for.  I may have the right to marry, but I don't have the right to marry my mailbox. 

I can overlook the fact that you continue misspelling "undo" but Loving had nothing to do with gay marriage. The court's decision was based on the understanding of what marriage is, the union of a man and woman... not what marriage is not. 

As I correctly stated, there are two ways the laws can be changed. Congressional Acts and Constitutional Amendments. Those opposed to gay marriage have already passed the first Act. They are considerably closer in numbers to being able to pass an Amendment. The gay marriage lobby can't even get a majority vote in either house of Congress.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > a) yes it is marriage equality and
> ...



Correct- its marriage equality when people of the same gender can marry just like people of the opposite gender.


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> yeah...that presumes that there is a *will* to "keep trying".  I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar.  I dunno, Boss.  There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.
> 
> I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to *deny* a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.



Well you can be as smug and arrogant as you please right now. I expect nothing more. There hasn't been a replacement for DOMA because it has only been a couple years, people haven't had time to elect the ones who will do that. I see no signs of the evangelicals abandoning their defense of traditional marriage. I think that may be wishful thinking on your part. 

You have about 100 million evangelical voters out there to contend with, and an election looming.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > a) yes it is marriage equality and
> ...



Sigh. 

How is allowing two people of the same gender the same rights to marriage as two people of the opposite gender the same as you killing every person in your vicinity?

It isn't. 

You don't have a right to be an Electrician at all. 

But we all have the right to marry, free from unwarranted government interference.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > a) yes it is marriage equality and
> ...



I don't know whether you are ignoring the point, or just don't understand it. The point is not what the courts decision was based upon- the point is that the Federal Court told the people of Virginia no you cannot prevent two people of the opposite race that they cannot marry. The people of Virginia have no more the right to change that court ruling than they do to change the rulings of courts that found that laws against same gender marriage are unconstitutional.

States cannot undue Federal court decisions.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > a) yes it is marriage equality and
> ...



The Supreme Court has already said that Congress cannot tell States how to regulate marriage.  

They are further and further away from ever being able to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban same gender marriage. 

Same gender marriage proponents don't need a majority vote in Congress- any more than the proponents of marriage of mixed race couples need a majority vote in Congress- 31 states its legal. Likely to be 10 more within a year.


----------



## AntiParty (Nov 3, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why can't states force slavery and control onto others? You are such a political bummer.


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No it's not, because I can't marry my mailbox. 

We have marriage equality now, you just want to redefine the parameters of marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > yeah...that presumes that there is a *will* to "keep trying".  I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar.  I dunno, Boss.  There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.
> ...



Hmmm I think your math is slightly off.

There are about 146 million registered voters in the United States- do you think evangelicals are 2/3 of the registered voters?

Best numbers I can come up with is that Evangelicals represent 28% of the vote......certainly not enough to pass an amendment.

Meanwhile- latest polls show that the majority of Americans support gay marriage- 52%- up from 35% in 2001.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Is your mailbox a person? 

The only difference between Jack and Jill being married and Jack and Bill being married is the gender of Jill and Bill.

What gender is your mailbox?


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I'm sorry you were educated in such a poor manner that you believe SCOTUS has final say. I can assure you this is not the case. Alcohol was legal in every state and controlled by the State... ever hear of Prohibition? _*We The People*_ have the ultimate say, not SCOTUS.


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age). 

To pass an amendment in Congress requires 2/3 vote... to ratify only requires a majority vote of the people in a ballot initiative. If 34 states ratify, the Amendment is law.


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Is your same-sex partner of the opposite gender?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Okay- show me 100 million Evangelicals of voting age in the United States.....

We have 316 million Americans of all ages- you think that there are 100 million Evangelicals out of that?

Once again- the majority of Americans- 52% support gay marriage.

Anyway- enjoy your fantasies.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I have a spouse. 

Not a mailbox.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



As I said earlier today

Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going. Same gender marriage is legal in 31 states and the District of Columbia. 

Absent a Supreme Court decision overturning those laws, or a Constitutional Amendment, those 31 states will continue to have marriage equality. 

The possibility you have suggested has not even a glimmer of support by either side, whereas there is a greater likelihood of additional states having marriage equality.

Considering that 52% of all Americans support gay marriage.....a Constitutional Amendment will be a challenge for you- but go for it!

Fo


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



*show me 100 million Evangelicals*
Well I can't show you 100 million evangelicals over the internet. They are out there though. 

*Once again- the majority of Americans- 52% support gay marriage.*
Once again-- No, you have a poll which indicates this. Your last poll said 35%.


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Doesn't matter what YOU have, we're talking about "marriage equality" now. 

If same-sex partners can be spouses, so can mailboxes.


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going.



But you can't. A nation divided will not stand. At some point, we reach a "defining moment" where this issue becomes settled once and for all. Now, maybe we need to have another Civil War? Certainly, there are people who are religiously bound and ready to die for the cause, are you? Is that where you want to take it? It remains to be seen if this is that important to you, or whether you might rather consider working on a solution we can all agree on. 

I suspect, when the political temperament swings the other way and we see a conservative majority in power, your tune will change. The smug and cocky arrogance will give way to the whiny sniveling pity party it usually is when you are in the minority. Perhaps then, you will begin to see things my way and be more willing to work toward a solution we can all live with.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).



Ahhh - if they don't register they can't vote.  Therefore "evangelical voters" must be a subset of "registered voters".




Boss said:


> To pass an amendment in Congress requires 2/3 vote... to ratify only requires a majority vote of the people in a ballot initiative. If 34 states ratify, the Amendment is law.



1.  It is up to either the legislature of a state constitutional convention to ratify an amendment that is approved by state constitutional convention and it is congress that sets the mode of ratification..  And I don't think any have been ratified by state constitutional convention (I'd have to check on that one.) 

2.  You set the wrong bar, it requires 38 states to ratify an amendment to the COTUS - not 34.  Thirty-four represents 2/3's which is incorrect, it requires 3/4's.

3.  Good luck with your amendment, it's been tried multiple times since the early 2000's and can't even make it out of Congress, being shot down each time.  Even when support was for such an amendment was higher than it is now.


>>>>


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).
> ...



You're way off the mark. States cannot hold constitutional conventions. They can have a convention to amend the constitution under Article V. The US Congress has absolutely NO input, other than to acknowledge the results. This is not a ratification. That still has to happen. 

I didn't suggest states will hold amendment conventions under Article V to adopt an Amendment prohibiting gay marriage. It is much more likely a 2/3 conservative congress would pass an Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. 

You may be right about 3/4 as opposed to 2/3, but in any event, only a majority is required in each state to approve ratification. 

And somehow, you mistakenly confuse the level of support with the recent activist judicial actions. You keep winning these court victories and presuming that settles the issue permanently, and that the people are just going to accept that and move on. They won't.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 3, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).
> ...



In other words..."Have fun storming the castle".


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> You're way off the mark. States cannot hold constitutional conventions. They can have a convention to amend the constitution under Article V. The US Congress has absolutely NO input, other than to acknowledge the results. This is not a ratification. That still has to happen.
> 
> I didn't suggest states will hold amendment conventions under Article V to adopt an Amendment prohibiting gay marriage. It is much more likely a 2/3 conservative congress would pass an Amendment and send it to the states for ratification.
> 
> ...



*Article V*
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.​


2/3's of the State can call a constitutional convention to propose amendments as well as via Congressional action.  3/4's of the States are then required to ratify such a proposed amendment.

Ratification can then occur either through passage of the legislature OR through a state level constitutional convention as the Congress decides ("as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress").

There are no "ballot initiatives" that the general population would vote on in regards to an amendment to the COTUS.  The ONLY way to amend the Constitution is through a republican system (i.e. representatives) not through direct ballot.  (Now a State could hold a non-binding ballot vote, nothing would prevent that, but it would still be up to the legislature or a state level constitutional convention to actually do the ratifying.)

A decade ago State level bans on SSCM passed with 23-76% margins of victory (IIRC).  In 2008/2009 (California Prop 8 and Maine Question 1) they barely squeaked by where a change of only 2.5% was needed to change the outcome.  In 2012 all four marriage equality issues on the General Election ballot (Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota) were one by those supporting marriage equality.  The COTUS amendment train has left the station.



>>>>


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Marriage is a certain thing,...


It is at this point that your entire argument falls apart.  You are correct.  Marriage *is* a certain thing - it is a contract between two people.   Nothing more.  Nothing less.  I have repeatedly, across several discussions, shown definitions dating back hundreds of years proving this point.  Who those two people are has changed repeatedly over the course of time.  Thus to try to claim some traditional authority for dictating who those two people "must be" is not only fallacious, but also lacks historical credibility.  It is not the gay rights activists who have attempted to turn marriage into a thing that it is not.  It is moralists like yourself.

Now, you are going to insist, once again, that you don't want to do that, however, that is a lie.  We know that is a lie, because you keep trying to shift the responsibility for attempting to turn marriage into something it isn't onto the gay rights activists.  If you were sincere in your desire to find a resolution, you would simply say, "Yes.  We tried to use the law to change the meaning of marriage into what we feel it 'should' be.  Since we have failed to do that, we would like to propose a compromise,"

However, you've not said that.  You have not said anything even remotely resembling that.  The reason for that is two-fold.  First, you don't really *want* to "get government out of marriage"; all you really want is to get the *fags* out of marriage.  Second is the fact that no one - not One.  Single. Person - who opposes gay marriage has joined you in your "crusade to get government out of marriage".  That is because no one on your side of the issue *wants* government out of marriage, and you know it.  You come here "offering" this "compromise", knowing full well that it is an offer that carries *zero weight*, because it has *zero support* among the opponents to gay marriage.  And, when those of us who support marriage equality laugh in your face, recognising the charade for what it is, you get to feel better about yourself, by pointing the finger at us, screaming, "See?!?!  You don't want compromise!!!"  knowing full well that all you were offering is empty rhetoric.

I'll tell you what.  You want support from the marriage equality folks for your idea?  Okay.  You get it from *your side first*.  You come with an actual proposal, with actual Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and other political opponents to gay marriage, on board, then we'll talk.  But, don't come feeding us some dog and pony show that you can't even get your own compatriots on board with, and act like *we're* the ones being unreasonable, and unwilling to compromise.

Let us know how you do selling your idea to your fellow opponents to gay marriage.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > yeah...that presumes that there is a *will* to "keep trying".  I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar.  I dunno, Boss.  There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.
> ...


Funny.  On  the other issue like this - the personhood amendment - there was a draft in 2002, 2004, 2008, 2012, *and* 2013.  "A couple of years" didn't seem to make a real difference on that issue.  There seems to be a real will among your side to keep trying to get personhood adopted.

Not so much with DOMA.  Why do you think that is????


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going.
> ...



The majority of Americans were against mixed race marriage when Loving v. Virginia declared that it was unconstitutional to ban mixed race marriage- by a very large margin. 
In U.S. 87 Approve of Black-White Marriage vs. 4 in 1958

In 1959 only 4% of Americans approved of mixed race marriages- now its 87%. Didn't pass 50% until the 1990's- more people approve of same gender marriage now, than approved of mixed race marriage in 1992. 

This even though the Loving's were not willing to go with your "end legal marriage" solution to their legal problem.

There were segregationists who claimed that they were willing to die to prevent mingling of whites and blacks. They are looked at, properly, with derision now. 

The younger generation has almost no issue with same gender marriage- that is where this is trending- just like acceptance of mixed race marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You have an imaginary 100 million evangelicals of voting age- even though there have never been anywhere close to that many voting. 

You don't believe the polls....because well those are actual numbers.....instead of your imaginary '100 million Evangelicals'

Whatever- no one is buying what you are selling.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I look forward to you suing for the right to marry your mailbox. 

Let us know how that goes. 

And I hope you two are in it for the long haul- for better and for worse, in sickness and in health- like this couple:











_Their relationship began at a party in 1962, a time when gay people were largely regarded as criminals and even diagnosed as mentally ill. At one point in her life, Thea was expelled from Sarah Lawrence College when she was caught by a security guard kissing an older woman. Yet despite the oppression and homophobia of the era, the two forged an incredibly rich companionship, traveling the world, hosting parties in the Hamptons with a close circle of friends and cultivating their love for one another.

After dating for a short time, Spyer proposed to Windsor in 1967; they finally married, 40 years later, in Canada in 2007. Spyer’s health slowly deteriorated over the years, and she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 45, a disease that didn’t stop the couple from dancing — even when Spyer was stricken to a wheelchair._


Read more: Endless Love: Inside the Photo Albums of Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - LightBox Endless Love Inside the Photo Albums of Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - LightBox


----------



## ShackledNation (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > No they don't. When a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the legislature cannot just pass the law again. Perhaps you do not understand. When something is unconstitutional, the people and the states have no right to do it. Ever. Period.
> ...


If the court declares a law that denies marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional, then passing a law that denies gay couples marriage licenses after the fact is blatantly unconstitutional. Legislatures cannot nullify court decisions on constitutional questions that they disagree with.


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

You people can think whatever you like. You've proven yourselves to be radical extremists who are not willing to compromise. When this is all said and done, it will closely resemble the solution I prescribed and you totally shit on. You will be able to have same-sex partnerships and get benefits, etc. You will not have government sanctioning Gay Marriage. If you don't want to believe that at this time, that's fine. I don't expect you to right now, you're too full of piss and vinegar. You've had a few victories and now you're all doing victory laps. There is more to come, and it';s not all going to go your way. There are many people in this country who do not believe in what you are trying to do and will not stand for it. Again... don't care if you believe me, not trying to intimidate you. Just stating what is the fact of life here. Our society is not one in which radical extremists can bull-rush their agenda on the rest of us.


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> If the court declares a law that denies marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional, then passing a law that denies gay couples marriage licenses after the fact is blatantly unconstitutional. Legislatures cannot nullify court decisions on constitutional questions that they disagree with.



1.) The court has never ruled that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional. I know that you interpreted it that way, but you need to go read the ruling.

2.) Passing a law which defines marriage is not unconstitutional.

3.) Legislatures most certainly CAN nullify court decisions on constitutional questions they disagree with. If they couldn't, we would have had Civil Rights in 1865. You are dealing with "co-equal" branches of government, the SCOTUS does not have supreme power over legislature.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > If the court declares a law that denies marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional, then passing a law that denies gay couples marriage licenses after the fact is blatantly unconstitutional. Legislatures cannot nullify court decisions on constitutional questions that they disagree with.
> ...




Where have you been since the Windsor decision?

There have quite a number of court rulings showing that denying same-sex couples Civil Marriages ("same-sex" more correct because there is no "gay" test as part of the licensing process) was unconstitutional.

Then after the Federal District Court rulings there were 7 cases, in 4 States, ruled on by 3 Circuit Court of Appeals stating that same-sex Civil Marriage bans were unconstitutional.  Those cases were appealed to the SCOTUS which recently rejected the appeals meaning the Circuit Court declaration that the bans were unconstitutional were the final rulings on the matter.



>>>>>


----------



## Boss (Nov 3, 2014)

*Where have you been since the Windsor decision?
*
Windsor: Not about denying marriage licenses to gay couples.

*Those cases were appealed to the SCOTUS which recently rejected the appeals meaning...*

Meaning SCOTUS did not rule on the issue of gay marriage licenses. .



WorldWatcher said:


> Circuit Court declaration that the bans were unconstitutional were the final rulings on the matter.



For their respective states, however... Justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor all went on record to say the cases should have been dismissed at the lower court level because they lack standing. They all concurred, the "will of the people" certainly trumps any court ruling in almost all cases.

The Obama justice department has adopted the policy of not defending DOMA cases. They waited until after re-election to implement this policy. There is a reason for that.  And there is a reason why this continues to be "won" in courts, where the ruling of three judges or even a single judge, is the deciding factor. The numbers at the ballot box are not there.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> You people can think whatever you like... don't care if you believe me...


That is the extent of your post that is factual.  The rest is nothing more than opinionated conjecture - conjecture which doesn't even have any basis beyond your own hatred of homosexuals, and anger that they are being allowed access to marriage.  You don't need to bother responding with how untrue that is - your every post proves otherwise.  I understand that you fervently *hope* that some day, someone will take up your cause, and enact some slightly altered version of DOMA.  Unfortunately, in a world where only 38% of Americans even oppose gay marriage - a number that is *shrinking* with every new poll -  there is simply no realistic justification for believing that will ever happen.  I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but you just keep repeating the same wish over, and over.  I understand that it is what you *want*, but reality is what it is.  There are not 100 million evangelicals storming Washington.  There is no army of moralists that are going to force the gays back into the closets where they belong.  There is only an extremely vocal, radical right who just can't accept the fact that they have lost - again.

Better luck, next time.


----------



## Taz (Nov 3, 2014)

Why is everyone afraid of the word marriage? And why do some people care what gays call their union? Trying to control gays?


----------



## ShackledNation (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > If the court declares a law that denies marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional, then passing a law that denies gay couples marriage licenses after the fact is blatantly unconstitutional. Legislatures cannot nullify court decisions on constitutional questions that they disagree with.
> ...


The Supreme Court has not, correct. But that was never the claim. All federal appeals courts to date that have ruled on the issue _have _ruled that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, as have nearly all district courts.



> 2.) Passing a law which defines marriage is not unconstitutional.


So passing a law that defines marriage as between two people of the same race is constitutional? Definitions cannot violate the Constitution of the United States. And nearly ever court has ruled definitions excluding same-sex couples, like definitions based on race, _do _violate the Constitution.



> 3.) Legislatures most certainly CAN nullify court decisions on constitutional questions they disagree with. If they couldn't, we would have had Civil Rights in 1865. You are dealing with "co-equal" branches of government, the SCOTUS does not have supreme power over legislature.


.
SCOTUS has supreme power _over interpreting the Constitution_. Of course if the Constitution is amended what will be interpreted will change. Nobody has ever disputed that. I fail to see the relevancy of your point, however. There will not and will never be a constitutional amendment defining marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 3, 2014)

Boss said:


> 1.) The court has never ruled that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional. I know that you interpreted it that way, but you need to go read the ruling.





Boss said:


> *Where have you been since the Windsor decision?
> *
> Windsor: Not about denying marriage licenses to gay couples.



Didn't say it was.  Windsor was about the Federal government not recognizing valid Civil Marriages entered into under State law.

*


Boss said:



			Those cases were appealed to the SCOTUS which recently rejected the appeals meaning...
		
Click to expand...

*


Boss said:


> Meaning SCOTUS did not rule on the issue of gay marriage licenses. .



You said "The court...", yes courts Federal District Courts and Circuit Courts have ruled.  The SCOTUS choose to allow those rulings to stand and for SSCM's to start adding about 12-states (IIRC) to 19 that already had recognized Civil Marriage between same-sex couples.



Boss said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Circuit Court declaration that the bans were unconstitutional were the final rulings on the matter.
> ...



Please cite your source.



Boss said:


> The Obama justice department has adopted the policy of not defending DOMA cases. They waited until after re-election to implement this policy. There is a reason for that.  And there is a reason why this continues to be "won" in courts, where the ruling of three judges or even a single judge, is the deciding factor.



What of course all has nothing to do with the dozens of district court cases, the 7 cases ruled on by 3 different Circuit court - none of which where accepted for appeal by the SCOTUS.




Boss said:


> The numbers at the ballot box are not there.



Last General Election (2012) - 4 initiatives.  Marriage Equality won in all 4 cases.

A decade ago the numbers were on the pro-discrimination side at the ballot box.  Not anymore.



>>>>


----------



## Boss (Nov 4, 2014)

*AGAIN...* The SCOTUS has *NOT RULED* that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 4, 2014)

Boss said:


> *AGAIN...* The SCOTUS has *NOT RULED* that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.


Wellll....actually they did.  The "Ruling" was "We have nothing to add to the ruling of the lower courts".  You may not like that ruling, but it was a ruling.  It was, in fact, the choice of the Supreme Court to *not* overturn the lower courts' rulings.  You can put any kind of spin on that decision you like, the bottom line is SCOTUS agreed with the lower courts.

The only other possible interpretation of recent events is that SCOTUS said, "Ya know what?  The lower courts fucked up, but we just don't give a shit."  Is that really the position you wanna stake out?  That the highest court in the land just said, "Fuck it!  We don't care.  Let's go have a beer,"?  Really???

Because, if its not, then you are left with no alternative but to accept the fact that SCOTUS *Chose.  Not.  To. Hear* the gay marriage appeals, because they agreed with the rulings, and saw no reason to waste the court's time hearing arguments on rulings they already knew they were going to uphold.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 4, 2014)

Boss said:


> 1.) The court has never ruled that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional. I know that you interpreted it that way, but you need to go read the ruling.





Boss said:


> *AGAIN...* The SCOTUS has *NOT RULED* that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.



Move the goalpost much?

You said "the court".  Well yes they have "the Federal District court" here, "the Federal District Court" there, and then in addition there was the 10th Circuit Court, the 9th Circuit Court, the 7th Circuit Court, and the 4th Circuit Court.

And the SCOTUS, with a variety of cases to choose from, rejected all the appeals requests allowing SSCM in over a dozen new states.

Twist and turn, spin and contort all you want.  The fact is that in those jurisdictions ban's on SSCM were found unconstitutional and those laws neutered.


>>>>


----------



## Boss (Nov 5, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *AGAIN...* The SCOTUS has *NOT RULED* that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.
> ...



LMAO... No sir... Not hearing a case is _*NEVER*_ a ruling. YOU are the one spinning that. 

In the case of California's Prop 8, the SCOTUS justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor all reviewed it and declared the case "lacked standing" and the lower court should have ruled accordingly. SCOTUS however, cannot tell the California Supreme Court what to do. 

They did not agree to not overturn, they did not agree to uphold... they agreed not to hear the case.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Okay.  Whatever helps you sleep at night.  I mean, you apparently think that at least three Supreme Court justices thought that, in at least one case, the lower courts made *the wrong decision*, and then just said "Meh.  Fuck it!  We don't care.  Let's go have a beer".  If that's how you think our SCOTUS works, okay.


----------



## Boss (Nov 5, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You are the one who apparently doesn't understand how the SCOTUS reviews and decides which cases to hear. See.... They're not looking at cases as opportunities to rewrite the Constitution and ensconce Progressivism into law by judicial fiat. 

I did not say they thought the lower court made the wrong decision, they thought the case should not have been heard because it lacked standing. Which is why they didn't hear the case.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Nov 5, 2014)

Marriage is the joining of one man, with one woman.  There is no alternative version, as nature provides the design of marriage, in nature's design of humanity.  Therefore there is nothing is the 'equal' to marriage.  One is either single, or a man married to a woman, a woman married to a man. Period.


----------



## Taz (Nov 5, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man, with one woman.  There is no alternative version, as nature provides the design of marriage, in nature's design of humanity.  Therefore there is nothing is the 'equal' to marriage.  One is either single, or a man married to a woman, a woman married to a man. Period.


It's amazing how people don't mind showing off how homophobic they are.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



But they did hear the case. 

That is why they had oral arguments.  

_During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor reportedly also asked the lawyer defending Prop 8 to explain what injury the proponents of the ban have suffered, suggesting doubts about the standing of the case.
_
The opponents of Prop 8 had argued that the defenders of Prop 8 had no standing- and in the end- after hearing the case from both sides- hearing about the merits of the case from both sides- the Court rejected the appeal and refused to overturn the Federal Courts decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional- because of standing

_ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, 
GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined
_
Kennedy, Alito and Sotomayor- contrary to your claim did not claim that the case lacked standing. They were part of the dissent.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man, with one woman.  There is no alternative version, as nature provides the design of marriage, in nature's design of humanity.  Therefore there is nothing is the 'equal' to marriage.  One is either single, or a man married to a woman, a woman married to a man. Period.



Bat guano crazy.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So, just so we understand one another, it is your contention that the SCOTUS felt that the Lower Court should never have heard a case, because the people who brought suit had no standing.  Furthermore, it is your contention that SCOTUS decided that the proper action to take, in order to correct this miscarriage of justice, was to do *nothing* rather than setting aside the ruling of this lower court, which never should have existed in the first place, and is certainly within the purview of the SCOTUS to do.  That is your position?  Really????  And you still claim that the decision to do nothing about a lower court ruling that you insist was wrong is, in no way, indicative of the SCOTUS' views of the ruling?  REALLY???


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 5, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> So, just so we understand one another, it is your contention that the SCOTUS felt that the Lower Court should never have heard a case, because the people who brought suit had no standing.  Furthermore, it is your contention that SCOTUS decided that the proper action to take, in order to correct this miscarriage of justice, was to do *nothing* rather than setting aside the ruling of this lower court, which never should have existed in the first place, and is certainly within the purview of the SCOTUS to do.  That is your position?  Really????  And you still claim that the decision to do nothing about a lower court ruling that you insist was wrong is, in no way, indicative of the SCOTUS' views of the ruling?  REALLY???




Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm doing this from memory:

1.  Prop 8 was passed.

2.  Suit was filed in Federal District court.

3.  The State (with Standing) **DID** defend the Proposition in Federal court.

4.  The Court ruled against the State.

5.  The State accepted the ruling and decided NOT to appeal the decision.

6.  Proponents of the measure then moved to defend the measure on appeal.  Which the California Supreme Court said they could do.​

So the interesting point is that the State (with standing) did defend the case at the District Court level, however those WITHOUT standing are the ones that attempted to defend it on appeal.  The SCOTUS ruling was that the proponents didn't have standing to appeal and so reversed the 9th Circuit courts decision and dismissed the SCOTUS case for standing.  Which of course left the District Court ruling as the final decision in the case.

At no point did the SCOTUS say that the State didn't have standing to defend the case in District Court and that the case never should have been heard (in that court) for lack of standing.


>>>>


----------



## Boss (Nov 5, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> But they did hear the case.
> 
> That is why they had oral arguments.



They reviewed oral arguments and decided *not to hear the case* on the grounds it lacked standing.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > But they did hear the case.
> ...



Supreme Court Hearing Anti-Gay Marriage Proposition 8 Case This Week - ABC News

They clearly 'heard' the case- since they literally heard the arguments. 

They decided the case on the standing issue.


----------



## Boss (Nov 5, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing. There was no ruling by SCOTUS.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So, again, it is your contention that the SCOTUS felt that the Lower Court should never have heard a case, because the people who brought suit had no standing. Furthermore, it is your contention that SCOTUS decided that the proper action to take, in order to correct this miscarriage of justice - that is, a ruling from a court that is under the jurisdiction of SCOTUS ruling on a case that it should never have heard in the first place -  was to do *nothing* rather than setting aside the ruling of this lower court, which never should have existed in the first place, and is certainly within the purview of the SCOTUS to do. That is your position? Really???? And you still claim that the decision to do nothing about a lower court ruling that you insist was wrong is, in no way, indicative of the SCOTUS' views of the ruling? REALLY???


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing.




How could they not hear the case, yet after hearing the case decide the proponents lacked standings?



Boss said:


> There was no ruling by SCOTUS.



Sure there was, decision by the SCOTUS in Hollingsworth v. Perry -->> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


They issued a ruling on standing, since the proponents didn't have standing, they didn't address the issue of Prop 8 on the merits of the Proposition, however that doesn't mean they didn't issue a ruling.


>>>>


----------



## Boss (Nov 5, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > No, they chose not to hear the case. They heard the oral arguments and decided the case lacked standing.
> ...



*SIGH*  What you are posting is the SCOTUS decision to *NOT HEAR THE CASE! *
They did not issue a ruling because they didn't hear the case. The case was brought to them, they listened to oral arguments, they considered hearing the case but decided it lacked standing. 

Now somehow... some way.. you fuckwits have perverted and distorted this into a Supreme Court ruling that Gay Marriage is constitutional. That is *NOT* the case. They made *NO* such ruling. They didn't rule that states can't prohibit Gay Marriage. They didn't rule that states can't define marriage as between a man and woman. *NO CASE HAS BEEN HEARD BY SCOTUS!*


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually, the 9th Circuit did that.  What you do not seem to understand is that when any court - whether it is a State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court of the United States - rules on  the constitutionality of a measure, that ruling stands a precedent, unless it is overturned by a higher court.  Since the "higher court" in this case - The Supreme Court - *Did.  Not.  Overturn the ruling*, that means that the Circuit Court's ruling stands, and guess what its ruling was?  That's right - that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Thank you for playing.


----------



## Boss (Nov 5, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



For now... In the state of California.


----------



## Boss (Nov 5, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> The Supreme Court - *Did. Not. Overturn the ruling*



Also did not *uphold* the ruling!


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually, "for now"...in *all* of the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




1,  *SIGH* They did hear the case.  A Writ of Certiorari was submitted to the SCOTUS and they accepted the case.  They determined that there were two questions to be answered.  The first was on standing, the second on the merits of Prop 8.  They answered the first question and determined that proponents didn't have standing, the second question was not addressed.  But the court did issue an opinion.

2.  Never said that Hollingsworth v. Perry was a decision on the constitutionality of SSCM.  It didn't, but the court did issue an opinion and that was linked for you.  You should scroll past the syllabus to the section entitled "Opinion of the Court".

3.  To the person that thinks that Constitutional Amendments are passed by 2/3rd's of the States based on state ballots, you really should take a basic civics class and try to understand judicial process of the SCOTUS and how the Constitutional amendment process works.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme Court - *Did. Not. Overturn the ruling*
> ...



In the Hollingsworth v. Perry case the SCOTUS overturned the 9th's ruling as being void since they shouldn't have accepted the proponents as having standing.  They could have also vacated the District Court Judges ruling (leaving Prop 8 as active), they choose not to do that.  Instead they allowed the District Courts ruling to stand that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

They result?  SSCM's resumed in California.


>>>>


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 5, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme Court - *Did. Not. Overturn the ruling*
> ...


Really?  I didn't know there was any other alternative.  Either a ruling is upheld - meaning it stays in place - or it's overruled - meaning it goes away.  It didn't go away, so guess what that means?  You see, a ruling that is not overruled is, by default, and definition, upheld.


----------



## Inevitable (Nov 5, 2014)

Having the ability to marry somebody of either sex is more liberty. 

More liberty is more than less liberty.

It's really simple.

I could be either a vegetarian or an omnivore right? That is my choice. How is declaring that you can only marry somebody of the opposite sex any different than the state declaring you can only serve vegetarian cuisine in a restaurant?


----------



## Boss (Nov 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No sir, they do not. The case was regarding California law, no other state was involved.


----------



## Boss (Nov 6, 2014)

Inevitable said:


> Having the ability to marry somebody of either sex is more liberty.
> 
> More liberty is more than less liberty.
> 
> ...



Because it is akin to saying that flying a rocket ship is the same as driving a car... then declaring you have a right to blow down the highway on a rocket because you have a driver's license and your rocket is a car. In your restaurant analogy, it's like saying that you have the right to serve food made of plastic instead of real food, but you call the plastic food real because it looks real to you. 

Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years. The union of same sex couples is just the union of same sex couples... not marriage. Now, I have no problem with you having a "wedding" and calling it a "marriage" ...just like I have no problem with you setting your table with plastic food and pretending you are eating dinner. I am opposed to having government sanction your activity under the law. 

I presented what I believe is a reasonable solution, but it has once again been buried by extremists who had rather cram their viewpoint down the throat of society against it's will. Radicals boasting about the flurry of recent court cases in their favor, some of them literally overturning the will of the people. I wonder how loud and proud they would be if the courts overturned the votes of the people in states where they made gay marriage legal?


----------



## Inevitable (Nov 6, 2014)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Having the ability to marry somebody of either sex is more liberty.
> ...


Incorrect, flying a rocket down a road built for automobiles is dangerous, as with your cockimamie restaurant analogy. 

Same sex marriage risks nothing. My analogies were apt. You just don't like them because they point out that your position is irrational.



> Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years. The union of same sex couples is just the union of same sex couples... not marriage. Now, I have no problem with you having a "wedding" and calling it a "marriage" ...just like I have no problem with you setting your table with plastic food and pretending you are eating dinner. I am opposed to having government sanction your activity under the law.


 Because of your fallacious appeal to tradition? The government should not really be concerned with your false propriety claim on any word. And it seems it isn't.



> I presented what I believe is a reasonable solution, but it has once again been buried by extremists who had rather cram their viewpoint down the throat of society against it's will.


Ironic.



> Radicals boasting about the flurry of recent court cases in their favor, some of them literally overturning the will of the people.


That is the court's duty. Not to be swayed by popular opinion.



> I wonder how loud and proud they would be if the courts overturned the votes of the people in states where they made gay marriage legal?


Much much more.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 6, 2014)

BOSS SAID:

“Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years.”

As a fact of law this is irrelevant.

That something is perceived to be 'traditional' or 'historic' is not justification to deny citizens their civil rights.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 6, 2014)

Boss said:


> I am opposed to having government sanction your activity under the law.



You have proposed Civil Unions for everyone and that the government recognize those under the law and that "marriage" not be used by the government.

*That is government recognition (or in your term - sanctioning).*  So your "idea" really doesn't change anything as the government would still recognize their "activity".



Boss said:


> I presented what I believe is a reasonable solution, but it has once again been buried by extremists who had rather cram their viewpoint down the throat of society against it's will. Radicals boasting about the flurry of recent court cases in their favor, some of them literally overturning the will of the people. I wonder how loud and proud they would be if the courts overturned the votes of the people in states where they made gay marriage legal?



Actually I'm onboard with the idea that the government recognize only Civil Unions and do so irregardless of the gender of the couple.  I could give a rats ass what the government calls the legal family relationship between my wife and I, our marriage is based on the commitment we made 27 years ago and not government terminology.

However, the largest push-pack you will have from such an idea will be from different-sex couples that insist on government recognition of their marriage and not wanting to call it a "Civil Union" instead.


>>>>


----------



## Boss (Nov 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Actually I'm onboard with the idea that the government recognize only Civil Unions and do so irregardless of the gender of the couple. I could give a rats ass what the government calls the legal family relationship between my wife and I, our marriage is based on the commitment we made 27 years ago and not government terminology.
> 
> However, the largest push-pack you will have from such an idea will be from different-sex couples that insist on government recognition of their marriage and not wanting to call it a "Civil Union" instead.



THEY can call it whatever they want to, so can gay couples, so can churches. No one has proposed that "marriage" would no longer exist or that "marriages" would no longer be performed. The only aspect changed is the governmental recognition of domestic relationships period. 

Most of the "traditionalists" are right-wing small government conservatives who want government out of our lives. Well... there you are! *POOF* The government is out of your life! No more government sanctioning what you can or can't call a "marriage!"


----------



## Boss (Nov 6, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BOSS SAID:
> 
> “Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, as it's been for 7,000 years.”
> 
> ...



NONSENSE! If this were the case, we could just pass a law that I can blow your ass away just for looking at me wrong in public and I can say that's my "right" because you threatened my right to life and pursuit of happiness. 

We don't arbitrarily CHANGE what things mean so they fit our agenda! I can't just up and SAY that "marriage" means I should have the right to marry a 12-year-old! Now, there is actually a better argument for THAT since it wasn't that long ago it was perfectly legal to marry 12-year-olds! But the point is, we can't just up and say something is "marriage" because we want to do it!


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 6, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Either you don't understand what a federal *Circuit* Court is, you don't understand the concept of jurisdiction, and how it applies to rulings, or you're completely full of shit, and hope that *I* don't understand those things...


----------



## Boss (Nov 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Proposition 8 was a California state law, it has nothing to do with anything else. All the court rulings in the case applied to a specific law in California, nowhere else. You're trying to claim it meant something it simply didn't mean. Case in point, IF it meant as you are claiming, gay marriage is completely legal in all states and has been found constitutional. That is NOT the case in reality.


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 7, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'm not the one who keeps trying to change how the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts work.  The rulings of the District Courts apply to *all the states in that circuit*; not only the state that specifically passed the law that is being considered by the court - it is called a *circuit* court for a reason - and the ruling does not apply to *all 50 states* - it is called a *circuit* court for a reason.

Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Isn't it more accurate to say "Thus when the 9th circuit ruled in Hollingsworth v Perry, among other things, that marriage is a civil, not a religious, matter, that ruling applies to not just California, but to all nine states that fall under that court's jurisdiction"...when the SCOTUS chose not to hear the cases?


----------



## toxicmedia (Nov 7, 2014)

Boss said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > How? How exactly is insisting that every person has the right to make moral decisions for themselves forcing my morality on you?
> ...


His view is superior to yours, and your view is intellectually repulsive.

PS, I'm still calling it marriage equality


----------



## Czernobog (Nov 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Welll...that's true.  The SCOTUS *could* haven chosen to vacate the ruling, if they felt that the court over-stepped its jurisdiction.  It chose not to.


----------



## Boss (Nov 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



The ruling applies to a law in the State of California only. The case was not about anything other than a law in the State of California. I'm not changing anything about the court's jurisdiction. Had they been ruling on laws in all those states, then their ruling would apply to all those states. They were not. They ruled on a law in the State of California.


----------



## Boss (Nov 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No. Because again, the case in question was about a law passed in the State of California, not any other state or law passed in any other state. The ruling only applies to the case brought before the court, which was regarding the law passed in California. If another state passed a similar law and someone brought that case before the court, they may use _Hollingsworth v Perry_ as a precedent, or they may find there isn't enough similarity to justify that. It's up to the court to decide at that time. They did not rule on constitutionality of gay marriage, only on a law passed in the State of California.


----------



## Boss (Nov 7, 2014)

*BREAKING NEWS: 
US Circuit Court: There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage* 

US Circuit Court There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage LibertyNEWS.com

Today’s decision helpfully explained why these laws are constitutional, why it is reasonable for citizens to support such laws, and why arguments for court-imposed redefinition of marriage do not succeed. It also sets the stage for marriage to return to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As the 6th Circuit decision helpfully notes, at issue in these cases is “whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit” to redefine marriage. The court ruled that the democratic process should continue:

Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the 32 million citizens who live within the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

In a similar fashion to a ruling last month from a federal judge in Puerto Rico, the 6th Circuit today noted that no Supreme Court precedent requires the judicial redefinition of marriage—and that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act case supports the authority of states to make marriage policy.


*..........RUH ROH! *


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 8, 2014)

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> > Having the ability to marry somebody of either sex is more liberty.
> ...



You did present what you believe to be a reasonable solution.

Others disagree. 

If the courts overturn laws legalizing same gender marriage- well then I will treat that like every other Supreme Court decision that I disagree with- I will still consider the Supreme Court ruling legal and binding.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 8, 2014)

Boss said:


> *BREAKING NEWS:
> US Circuit Court: There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage*
> 
> US Circuit Court There is No Constitutional Right to Same Sex Marriage LibertyNEWS.com
> ...



I was beginning to wonder if any American courts would disagree- and whether the Supreme Court would never even have to address the issue.

Now that 3 Appellete courts have rule one way- and now one has ruled the other- the supreme court should take this up.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 8, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *BREAKING NEWS:
> ...


Which is appropriate.

Compelling gay Americans to fight for their civil rights on a state by state basis is anathema to the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law. Citizens don't forfeit their civil liberties merely as a consequence of their state of residence, where the consistent application of citizens' rights is mandated by the 14th Amendment.


----------

