32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

Yup...blame the SCOTUS for ruling on Loving. The 14th is where your "slippery slope" began. Some guy even "warned" that the potential for interracial marriage existed once the 14th was passed. He was right.

You keep trying to equate race with sexuality, and keep failing with the exception of the old "It affects me, I like it, and thus is should be OK" line of argument.

You obviously don't understand.


There are other criteria upon which the states might discriminate besides race, criteria which are just as illegal and un-Constitutional.


One such criterion is to seek to violate the protected liberty of citizens and the right to self-determination, where whether one realizes homosexuality as a consequence of birth or choice, that manifestation is entitled to equal protection under the law:


“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”


Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)).


Consequently, for the states to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, they ignore “the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” ibid. Race and sexuality are therefore equal to the extent that the Constitution forbids government from seeking to disadvantage either absent a rational basis, documented evidence in support, and pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts just as are opposite-sex couples, as marriage is a union of two equal partners who are willing to commit to one another as recognized by the state; where their commitment is just as valid and just as worthy of recognition by the state as opposite-sex couples.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The analogy is that in both cases you have two people who want the same right to marry that heterosexual couples of the same race had, but that was being denied to interracial couples and to same sex couples.

The burden, btw, is for you to show that the government has any compelling interest in denying marriage rights to same sex couples, in other words, some greater good that must be protected that same sex marriage threatens.


Correct.


And those hostile to the civil liberties of same-sex couples have failed time and again to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of denying them their equal protection rights.


With regard to Loving, the state of Virginia sought to deny an interracial couple access to that state's marriage law as a consequence of the choice that couple made to marry in accordance with the contract law they were eligible to participate in, simply because that union would result in an interracial marriage – the Supreme Court invalidated Virginia's antimiscegenation law because it lacked a rational basis in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, where the Virginia law sought only to discriminate.


Loving is on point, therefore, because just as it is un-Constitutional to deny an interracial couple access to marriage law, so too is it un-Constitutional to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, where both laws fail to pursue a legitimate legislative end, and seek only to disadvantage either interracial or same-sex couples simply because of who they are.

 

[hazlnut]

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

Yup...blame the SCOTUS for ruling on Loving. The 14th is where your "slippery slope" began. Some guy even "warned" that the potential for interracial marriage existed once the 14th was passed. He was right.

You keep trying to equate race with sexuality, and keep failing with the exception of the old "It affects me, I like it, and thus is should be OK" line of argument.

No, Sexual orientation. Which is closer to left-handed.

Both are hard-wired traits-- you are born with them. No form "psychology" can change you.

Born with them. Not a choice. Like skin color.

 

[JoeB131]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

1. "Civil Unions" are the legal equivlent of a Colored Water Fountain. You don't want them to use the word, because you think you own that word.

2. Yes it is. What's your problem with that?

3. Meh, Just can't see Polygamy as this horrible thing we need to avoid. Not that there's any popular demand for it, but frankly, if some guy wants to marry two willing women, he's welcome to the abuse.

4. Uh, yeah, they kind of are. At the end of the day, they are about not letting people have something because it makes YOU uncomfortable.

 

[hazlnut]

America - we set the bar hight... it's only taken 238 years to get close to all the equality stuff.

 

[Seawytch]

That's your response to Redfish's uncontestable disputation of this mindless stupidity?

. . . the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny.​

You leftists are mindless, political sociopaths. License and perversion is not liberty. Normative relativism is not liberty. It's tyranny, depravity, chaos, anarchy, atrocity.

Liberty is predicated on the absolute imperatives of natural law! You may not violate the life, liberty or the property of others, and that includes the rights of nature. These things are absolutely inalienable.

And some of you wonder why I say that the only thing these barbarians will ever understand about the inalienable imperatives of limited republican government is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.

Do you get my point now? Do you see what the sane among us are up against now?

You really are out there aren't you?

"These barbarians?" OMG, you're Marcus Bachmann aren't you? Do those naughty, naughty gays need to be disciplined?

The Fabulous Marcus Bachmann

 

[rightwinger]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination

Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .

On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.

But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.

Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.

Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.

You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.

But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.

Fine.

Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.

Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.

That was the point I made here, you nitwit, sans the alleged biological basis: "On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please?"

Notwithstanding, there is no physiological or biological basis for homosexuality. Homosexuality is depraved, deviant, pathological. Just because humans can do something, it's necessarily healthy or moral?! Behold: normative relativism. And what is the essence of any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government? Answer: Tyranny.

Enlightened people know why that's true. Nose-picking hayseeds and sociopaths don't.

Gay marriage is TYRANNY

Thank you Capt Hyperbole

No. I said that any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government (i.e., institutionalized by the government) is tyranny, sociopath, and you're welcome for the heads up, nose-picking hayseed.

Actually, the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny

So, incest, bigamy, polygamy, beastiality, and kiddie porn should not be classified as illegal relationships by the government? A society without rules is not a society or a civilization.

derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

That's your response to Redfish's uncontestable disputation of this mindless stupidity?

. . . the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny.​

You leftists are mindless, political sociopaths. License and perversion is not liberty. Normative relativism is not liberty. It's tyranny, depravity, chaos, anarchy, atrocity.

Liberty is predicated on the absolute imperatives of natural law! You may not violate the life, liberty or the property of others, and that includes the rights of nature. These things are absolutely inalienable.

And some of you wonder why I say that the only thing these barbarians will ever understand about the inalienable imperatives of limited republican government is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.

Do you get my point now? Do you see what the sane among us are up against now?

The constant screaming of bestiality, pedophilia and incest whenever gay marriage is discussed is mindless stupidity. Comparing criminal acts to a legal activity is not valid

The government has no business getting involved in whether Steve and Marie is a better relationship than Steve and Dave

 

[Redfish]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination

Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .

On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.

But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.

Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.

Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.

You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.

But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.

Fine.

Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.

Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.

That was the point I made here, you nitwit, sans the alleged biological basis: "On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please?"

Notwithstanding, there is no physiological or biological basis for homosexuality. Homosexuality is depraved, deviant, pathological. Just because humans can do something, it's necessarily healthy or moral?! Behold: normative relativism. And what is the essence of any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government? Answer: Tyranny.

Enlightened people know why that's true. Nose-picking hayseeds and sociopaths don't.

Gay marriage is TYRANNY

Thank you Capt Hyperbole

No. I said that any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government (i.e., institutionalized by the government) is tyranny, sociopath, and you're welcome for the heads up, nose-picking hayseed.

Actually, the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny

So, incest, bigamy, polygamy, beastiality, and kiddie porn should not be classified as illegal relationships by the government? A society without rules is not a society or a civilization.

derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

That's your response to Redfish's uncontestable disputation of this mindless stupidity?

. . . the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny.​

You leftists are mindless, political sociopaths. License and perversion is not liberty. Normative relativism is not liberty. It's tyranny, depravity, chaos, anarchy, atrocity.

Liberty is predicated on the absolute imperatives of natural law! You may not violate the life, liberty or the property of others, and that includes the rights of nature. These things are absolutely inalienable.

And some of you wonder why I say that the only thing these barbarians will ever understand about the inalienable imperatives of limited republican government is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.

Do you get my point now? Do you see what the sane among us are up against now?

The constant screaming of bestiality, pedophilia and incest whenever gay marriage is discussed is mindless stupidity. Comparing criminal acts to a legal activity is not valid

The government has no business getting involved in whether Steve and Marie is a better relationship than Steve and Dave

you just refuse to understand. This is a legal matter. Once man/man and woman/woman marriage is made legal then there is no viable legal argument that can be brought to deny bigamy, polygamy, sibling, parent/child, and every other form of "marriage". If thats the society that we want, then lets vote on it and let the majority decide.

The central issue here is whether this society believes that homosexuality is a normal human condition and that human reproductive biology (remember, sex is mainly about reproduction). Its also an enjoyable human activity but the primary function of our genitalia is reproduction of our species. A penis in a male rectum cannot reproduce, neither can a female tongue in a vagina.

What two consenting adults do in private is no ones business but theirs, but that same society should decide what constitutes a marriage. So lets vote on it---------all of us, and lets all be ready to accept the will of the majority, unlike the votes in california where the will of the people was rejected by some activist judges.

 

[Redfish]

That's your response to Redfish's uncontestable disputation of this mindless stupidity?

. . . the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny.​

You leftists are mindless, political sociopaths. License and perversion is not liberty. Normative relativism is not liberty. It's tyranny, depravity, chaos, anarchy, atrocity.

Liberty is predicated on the absolute imperatives of natural law! You may not violate the life, liberty or the property of others, and that includes the rights of nature. These things are absolutely inalienable.

And some of you wonder why I say that the only thing these barbarians will ever understand about the inalienable imperatives of limited republican government is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.

Do you get my point now? Do you see what the sane among us are up against now?

You really are out there aren't you?

"These barbarians?" OMG, you're Marcus Bachmann aren't you? Do those naughty, naughty gays need to be disciplined?

The Fabulous Marcus Bachmann

Is it illegal to have a belief which differs from yours? Is the government to be empowered to mandate what we think and believe?

The intolerance of the left of any viewpoint besides theirs is amazing. You demand tolerance but you do not practice it.

 

[rightwinger]

you just refuse to understand. This is a legal matter. Once man/man and woman/woman marriage is made legal then there is no viable legal argument that can be brought to deny bigamy, polygamy, sibling, parent/child, and every other form of "marriage". If thats the society that we want, then lets vote on it and let the majority decide.

The central issue here is whether this society believes that homosexuality is a normal human condition and that human reproductive biology (remember, sex is mainly about reproduction). Its also an enjoyable human activity but the primary function of our genitalia is reproduction of our species. A penis in a male rectum cannot reproduce, neither can a female tongue in a vagina.

What two consenting adults do in private is no ones business but theirs, but that same society should decide what constitutes a marriage. So lets vote on it---------all of us, and lets all be ready to accept the will of the majority, unlike the votes in california where the will of the people was rejected by some activist judges.

There is a viable legal argument. Those activities are against the law....homosexuality is not

Marriage is about love....it is not about a sex act. Society has no business telling you who you can love (as long as you break no law and harm no one)

Vote?

Why should you get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have?

 

[Redfish]

you just refuse to understand. This is a legal matter. Once man/man and woman/woman marriage is made legal then there is no viable legal argument that can be brought to deny bigamy, polygamy, sibling, parent/child, and every other form of "marriage". If thats the society that we want, then lets vote on it and let the majority decide.

The central issue here is whether this society believes that homosexuality is a normal human condition and that human reproductive biology (remember, sex is mainly about reproduction). Its also an enjoyable human activity but the primary function of our genitalia is reproduction of our species. A penis in a male rectum cannot reproduce, neither can a female tongue in a vagina.

What two consenting adults do in private is no ones business but theirs, but that same society should decide what constitutes a marriage. So lets vote on it---------all of us, and lets all be ready to accept the will of the majority, unlike the votes in california where the will of the people was rejected by some activist judges.

There is a viable legal argument. Those activities are against the law....homosexuality is not

Marriage is about love....it is not about a sex act. Society has no business telling you who you can love (as long as you break no law and harm no one)

Vote?

Why should you get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have?

What is legal and what is illegal is decided by each society or civilization by a consensus of the members of that society.

Our constitution and bill of rights was established by a majority vote of the states.

We do vote on what rights others are allowed to have. That is the entire purpose of our congress, to vote on the laws that govern this country---------and they decide each new law by MAJORITY vote.

Marriage is not about love. Its a legal document that binds a man and woman to a relationship. I want gays to have the same kind of legally binding document, I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. The word "marriage" is not necessary to achieve those equal rights.

Why is the word "marriage" sooooooooooooooooooooo important to you gays?

I know the answer, do you?

 

[rightwinger]

What is legal and what is illegal is decided by each society or civilization by a consensus of the members of that society.

Our constitution and bill of rights was established by a majority vote of the states.

We do vote on what rights others are allowed to have. That is the entire purpose of our congress, to vote on the laws that govern this country---------and they decide each new law by MAJORITY vote.

Marriage is not about love. Its a legal document that binds a man and woman to a relationship. I want gays to have the same kind of legally binding document, I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. The word "marriage" is not necessary to achieve those equal rights.

Why is the word "marriage" sooooooooooooooooooooo important to you gays?

I know the answer, do you?

Yes I do know the answer

Because they have lived their lives hiding in the shadows keeping their mouths shut about their relationships. They have been told that their love is sinfull and been equated to animals. Because they want to be able to introduce the most important person in their lives as "This is my wife" or "This is my husband" not as..."This is my partner"

Because they want their relationship treated like everyone elses

 

[Gadawg73]

Redneck Chicken Wings and Cold Beer Gay Marriage Poll Update:

Last poll about first of the year: 3 no problem with it, 4 against, 2 leaning for it and 3 leaning against it

Moe: Against
Curtis: leaning against it
GaDawg: No problem with it
Hector: Leaning for it
Jeff: No problem with it
Crystal: Leaning for it
Bill: Against
Doug: No problem with it
Amber:Against
Carl: No problem with it
Jessica: Leaning for it
Josh: Leaning against it

4 no problem with it, 3 against, 3 leaning for it and 2 leaning against it

 

[Redfish]

What is legal and what is illegal is decided by each society or civilization by a consensus of the members of that society.

Our constitution and bill of rights was established by a majority vote of the states.

We do vote on what rights others are allowed to have. That is the entire purpose of our congress, to vote on the laws that govern this country---------and they decide each new law by MAJORITY vote.

Marriage is not about love. Its a legal document that binds a man and woman to a relationship. I want gays to have the same kind of legally binding document, I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. The word "marriage" is not necessary to achieve those equal rights.

Why is the word "marriage" sooooooooooooooooooooo important to you gays?

I know the answer, do you?

Yes I do know the answer

Because they have lived their lives hiding in the shadows keeping their mouths shut about their relationships. They have been told that their love is sinfull and been equated to animals. Because they want to be able to introduce the most important person in their lives as "This is my wife" or "This is my husband" not as..."This is my partner"

Because they want their relationship treated like everyone elses

The word 'marriage' is not necessary for those things to happen. "partner" is a much more accurate word to describe the members of a gay committed relationship.

But, you failed my test. The reason the word 'marriage' is soooooooooooooooo important is because the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government mandating societal acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships as normal human conditions equal in every way to human male/female biology-----------------------but they aren't and never will be.

Virtually everyone (except muslims) wants gays to be treated equally and fairly. But virtually everyone does not want the government to tell us what to think and what to believe.

Orwell and Rand saw it coming-----------read their books, you might learn something.

 

[Seawytch]

Is it illegal to have a belief which differs from yours? Is the government to be empowered to mandate what we think and believe?

The intolerance of the left of any viewpoint besides theirs is amazing. You demand tolerance but you do not practice it.

MMMMmmmmm mmmmm, I do love me hyperbole flakes in the morning. Goes so well with coffee. Where did I say I want him jailed or his beliefs made illegal? I didn't. He is free to have whatever beliefs he wants and I am free to ridicule them as I see fit. Ain't America grand?

I will never be tolerant of intolerance.

 

[rightwinger]

What is legal and what is illegal is decided by each society or civilization by a consensus of the members of that society.

Our constitution and bill of rights was established by a majority vote of the states.

We do vote on what rights others are allowed to have. That is the entire purpose of our congress, to vote on the laws that govern this country---------and they decide each new law by MAJORITY vote.

Marriage is not about love. Its a legal document that binds a man and woman to a relationship. I want gays to have the same kind of legally binding document, I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. The word "marriage" is not necessary to achieve those equal rights.

Why is the word "marriage" sooooooooooooooooooooo important to you gays?

I know the answer, do you?

Yes I do know the answer

Because they have lived their lives hiding in the shadows keeping their mouths shut about their relationships. They have been told that their love is sinfull and been equated to animals. Because they want to be able to introduce the most important person in their lives as "This is my wife" or "This is my husband" not as..."This is my partner"

Because they want their relationship treated like everyone elses

The word 'marriage' is not necessary for those things to happen. "partner" is a much more accurate word to describe the members of a gay committed relationship.

But, you failed my test. The reason the word 'marriage' is soooooooooooooooo important is because the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government mandating societal acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships as normal human conditions equal in every way to human male/female biology-----------------------but they aren't and never will be.

Virtually everyone (except muslims) wants gays to be treated equally and fairly. But virtually everyone does not want the government to tell us what to think and what to believe.

Orwell and Rand saw it coming-----------read their books, you might learn something.

Actually it is about equality and equal application of our laws

They are not forcing you to accept their marriage, you are still free to hate gays if you want

You just can't force the government to accept your hatred

 

[Seawytch]

The word 'marriage' is not necessary for those things to happen. "partner" is a much more accurate word to describe the members of a gay committed relationship.

So get it changed Fishy, for everyone. I understand you don't feel special anymore because gays get to use the word marriage so go ahead and change it to civil unions for everyone. Gays don't care, you do.

 

[Redfish]

Is it illegal to have a belief which differs from yours? Is the government to be empowered to mandate what we think and believe?

The intolerance of the left of any viewpoint besides theirs is amazing. You demand tolerance but you do not practice it.

MMMMmmmmm mmmmm, I do love me hyperbole flakes in the morning. Goes so well with coffee. Where did I say I want him jailed or his beliefs made illegal? I didn't. He is free to have whatever beliefs he wants and I am free to ridicule them as I see fit. Ain't America grand?

I will never be tolerant of intolerance.

Said the intolerant one. you are totally intolerant of any opinion that differs from yours. You support government mandated thoughts and opinions.

What gives you the right to dictate what others believe? You act like a radical muslim--------"anyone who disagrees with the doctrine is to be eliminated"

 

[Redfish]

What is legal and what is illegal is decided by each society or civilization by a consensus of the members of that society.

Our constitution and bill of rights was established by a majority vote of the states.

We do vote on what rights others are allowed to have. That is the entire purpose of our congress, to vote on the laws that govern this country---------and they decide each new law by MAJORITY vote.

Marriage is not about love. Its a legal document that binds a man and woman to a relationship. I want gays to have the same kind of legally binding document, I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. The word "marriage" is not necessary to achieve those equal rights.

Why is the word "marriage" sooooooooooooooooooooo important to you gays?

I know the answer, do you?

Yes I do know the answer

Because they have lived their lives hiding in the shadows keeping their mouths shut about their relationships. They have been told that their love is sinfull and been equated to animals. Because they want to be able to introduce the most important person in their lives as "This is my wife" or "This is my husband" not as..."This is my partner"

Because they want their relationship treated like everyone elses

The word 'marriage' is not necessary for those things to happen. "partner" is a much more accurate word to describe the members of a gay committed relationship.

But, you failed my test. The reason the word 'marriage' is soooooooooooooooo important is because the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government mandating societal acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships as normal human conditions equal in every way to human male/female biology-----------------------but they aren't and never will be.

Virtually everyone (except muslims) wants gays to be treated equally and fairly. But virtually everyone does not want the government to tell us what to think and what to believe.

Orwell and Rand saw it coming-----------read their books, you might learn something.

Actually it is about equality and equal application of our laws

They are not forcing you to accept their marriage, you are still free to hate gays if you want

You just can't force the government to accept your hatred

I hate no one. The hate and hateful rhetoric is all coming from your side. the intolerance is all coming from your side.

 

[Seawytch]

Said the intolerant one. you are totally intolerant of any opinion that differs from yours. You support government mandated thoughts and opinions.

What gives you the right to dictate what others believe? You act like a radical muslim--------"anyone who disagrees with the doctrine is to be eliminated"

I am tolerant of their beliefs, I do not wish to make their beliefs illegal or jail them for them. It is not their beliefs that I have a problem with...it is when they try to codify their beliefs into US law that I "disagree" and will not tolerate their intolerance.