Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[kaz]

I didn't say the Supreme Court can't rule, so your argument is bogus. Their ruling needs to be based on the Constitution, and that is where they failed.

You mean like the part of the Constitution where States can't deny citizens the privileges and immunities of the law, where all citizens (including homosexuals) are required to receive due process nor be denied equal protections under the law?

Don't worry, IF the SCOTUS takes a case (very likely, depends some on what the 6th Circuit does), and IF they rule that States can't discriminate in the area of Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple - it will be based on the Constitution.


>>>>

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

 

[Seawytch]

You mean like the part of the Constitution where States can't deny citizens the privileges and immunities of the law, where all citizens (including homosexuals) are required to receive due process nor be denied equal protections under the law?

Don't worry, IF the SCOTUS takes a case (very likely, depends some on what the 6th Circuit does), and IF they rule that States can't discriminate in the area of Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple - it will be based on the Constitution.


>>>>

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean like the part of the Constitution where States can't deny citizens the privileges and immunities of the law, where all citizens (including homosexuals) are required to receive due process nor be denied equal protections under the law?

Don't worry, IF the SCOTUS takes a case (very likely, depends some on what the 6th Circuit does), and IF they rule that States can't discriminate in the area of Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple - it will be based on the Constitution.


>>>>

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

 

[Seawytch]

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

He's not serious. He does it on purpose. Kaz doesn't think anyone should be civilly married (despite being civilly married). He doesn't want to discuss the world where it is, but where he thinks it should be. If you ask him "as long as civil marriage exists, should gays have equal access to it?", despite being a self described libertarian, he won't answer that question and instead falls back to his "there should be no civil marriage argument". Back to the world where he wants it, not where it is.

I think you can't pin him down on the question because he thinks gays are icky and just doesn't want gays to have the same rights he enjoys with his civil marriage. I don't know if it's a deeply held religious belief for him or not, but he's decided to go full hyperbole over it instead of just answering the simple question;

As long as civil marriage exists, should gay couples have equal access to it for their relationships?

 

[kaz]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

 

[kaz]

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

Strawman

 

[kaz]

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

He's not serious. He does it on purpose. Kaz doesn't think anyone should be civilly married (despite being civilly married).

I know you know this, which is why I don't get your insistance on calling me a homophobe in every argument. I realize that's what your liberal conditioning prescribes, and yet as you keep repeating you know it's not my issue with gay marriage. It just makes me not take you seriously.

He doesn't want to discuss the world where it is, but where he thinks it should be. If you ask him "as long as civil marriage exists, should gays have equal access to it?", despite being a self described libertarian, he won't answer that question and instead falls back to his "there should be no civil marriage argument". Back to the world where he wants it, not where it is.

I think you can't pin him down on the question because he thinks gays are icky and just doesn't want gays to have the same rights he enjoys with his civil marriage. I don't know if it's a deeply held religious belief for him or not, but he's decided to go full hyperbole over it instead of just answering the simple question;

As long as civil marriage exists, should gay couples have equal access to it for their relationships?

Actually, I've answered that question directly, many times. I don't answer it when you lace it with ridiculous strawmen and insults in the question, but I have taken every chance to answer it for you and others when you don't do that. I have two modes, serious and fun. You don't get to mix them, you have to pick. So again,

1) All government marriage is wrong, government should treat all of it's citizens equally. There are better solutions to everything government marriage does than government marriage. Taxes should be flat, the death tax is evil, parental rights and responsibilities should be related to biology and not paper, etc.

2) Adding gays to that extends inequality between married and single to more people. That a libertarian would believe that the path to ending government discrimination is by extending discrimination to more people is preposterous. It's also presposerous to argue to a libertarian that THEY have it, so you want it from government too. We don't like government. It's like asking Hitler to bless a Jewish wedding. I hate government, your need for validation from it isn't relevant to me and I don't grasp why it's relevant to you.

3) If you get gay marriage through the legislature, I am not for it, but I pretty much don't give a rat's ass. You're not going to get me demonstrating against it and it will be way, way down from the top of my list of government actions I oppose.

4) However, you are doing it criminally, by getting self appointed dictators to legislate from the bench and decree it. Every time they do that, they are more emboldened to decree more of my liberties away.

5) As for the 14th amendment. The role of the courts is literal, it is not to make life fair. When blacks were sent to separate schools, forced to sit in the back of the bus, use different drinking fountains, they were literally treated differently from other citizens. Being black changed how the law applied to you. Gays can literally marry the same people as straights. Either can enter man/woman government marriage, neither can enter single sex marriage. The job of the courts ends there. It's not fair? Fairness is a job for the legislature.

When I don't answer your questions, read this again and stop with the strawman crap putting words in my mouth and being an ass when you ask them. Or, insult me and have fun and don't expect a serious answer. But when you are posting with me, you pick. I'm fine either way. But when you choose to go with snotty questions, you won't get serious answers.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

Strawman

Oh... did not realize you were just drawing up a fallacious straw-man argument that "you are not equal unless you are superior."

So you agree then that homosexual marriages are not superior to heterosexual marriages. Fine, do you believe they are inferior or equal? And if so why.

As to the solution of banning federal and state governments from regulating marriage, and restricting said types of laws to contract or estate management, such as by only allowing civil unions of consenting adults to be regulated and removing restrictions on plural and sexual orientation. Well ok where's the support for that from our elected officials? Seems to me the tyrants in the majority like their marriages to be regulated, thus placing you and I in the minority and left to settle for a less than optimal solution.

 

[RKMBrown]

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

He's not serious. He does it on purpose. Kaz doesn't think anyone should be civilly married (despite being civilly married).

I know you know this, which is why I don't get your insistance on calling me a homophobe in every argument. I realize that's what your liberal conditioning prescribes, and yet as you keep repeating you know it's not my issue with gay marriage. It just makes me not take you seriously.

He doesn't want to discuss the world where it is, but where he thinks it should be. If you ask him "as long as civil marriage exists, should gays have equal access to it?", despite being a self described libertarian, he won't answer that question and instead falls back to his "there should be no civil marriage argument". Back to the world where he wants it, not where it is.

I think you can't pin him down on the question because he thinks gays are icky and just doesn't want gays to have the same rights he enjoys with his civil marriage. I don't know if it's a deeply held religious belief for him or not, but he's decided to go full hyperbole over it instead of just answering the simple question;

As long as civil marriage exists, should gay couples have equal access to it for their relationships?

Actually, I've answered that question directly, many times. I don't answer it when you lace it with ridiculous strawmen and insults in the question, but I have taken every chance to answer it for you and others when you don't do that. I have two modes, serious and fun. You don't get to mix them, you have to pick. So again,

1) All government marriage is wrong, government should treat all of it's citizens equally. There are better solutions to everything government marriage does than government marriage. Taxes should be flat, the death tax is evil, parental rights and responsibilities should be related to biology and not paper, etc.

2) Adding gays to that extends inequality between married and single to more people. That a libertarian would believe that the path to ending government discrimination is by extending discrimination to more people is preposterous. It's also presposerous to argue to a libertarian that THEY have it, so you want it from government too. We don't like government. It's like asking Hitler to bless a Jewish wedding. I hate government, your need for validation from it isn't relevant to me and I don't grasp why it's relevant to you.

3) If you get gay marriage through the legislature, I am not for it, but I pretty much don't give a rat's ass. You're not going to get me demonstrating against it and it will be way, way down from the top of my list of government actions I oppose.

4) However, you are doing it criminally, by getting self appointed dictators to legislate from the bench and decree it. Every time they do that, they are more emboldened to decree more of my liberties away.

5) As for the 14th amendment. The role of the courts is literal, it is not to make life fair. When blacks were sent to separate schools, forced to sit in the back of the bus, use different drinking fountains, they were literally treated differently from other citizens. Being black changed how the law applied to you. Gays can literally marry the same people as straights. Either can enter man/woman government marriage, neither can enter single sex marriage. The job of the courts ends there. It's not fair? Fairness is a job for the legislature.

When I don't answer your questions, read this again and stop with the strawman crap putting words in my mouth and being an ass when you ask them. Or, insult me and have fun and don't expect a serious answer. But when you are posting with me, you pick. I'm fine either way. But when you choose to go with snotty questions, you won't get serious answers.

And if wishes were horses beggars would ride... but they aren't are they?

 

[ShackledNation]

There is more support for same-sex marriage now than at any time in this nation's history. But go ahead and pretend like support is falling, that will only make marriage equality happen all that much sooner.

Geesh. Some people are so out of touch.

82% of the hundreds who responded to this poll: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 146 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum don't belive that gay marriage should be a sweeping "right".

The poll does not ask "should gay marriage be a right" so your claim is patently false. You are either hopelessly stupid, blatantly dishonest, or a mixture of both.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, I've answered that question directly, many times. I don't answer it when you lace it with ridiculous strawmen and insults in the question, but I have taken every chance to answer it for you and others when you don't do that. I have two modes, serious and fun. You don't get to mix them, you have to pick. So again,

Kaz, I'm curious on how you voted on the poll above? And how you feel about children's rights being a part of this conversation. No doubt you've seen the pictures I've posted of typical [even toned down in some cases] gay pride parades done in the presence of, and expectation/hopes of, children attending. Would you say that anyone from a subculture that promotes those types of acts in front of kids deserves legal access to our nation's most vulnerable citizens [orphaned kids] via the loophole of marriage or not?

 

[Seawytch]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

 

[Silhouette]

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

How about the civil rights of already-born orphans? Don't they have a say in who they'll be forcibly adopted out to via the legal loophole of marriage in many states? Who advocates for their civil rights? Who are their custodians and what do those custodians have to say about two men or two women playing "mom and dad" to them?

 

[RKMBrown]

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

How about the civil rights of already-born orphans? Don't they have a say in who they'll be forcibly adopted out to via the legal loophole of marriage in many states?

Who said orphans and their wards don't have a say? Why do you keep asking this question about orphans again and again and again. As if two gays getting married is the same as throwing out all adoption rules? WTF?

Since when does anyone even have to be married to adopt a child? WTF are you talking about?

FORCIBLY ADOPTED? WTF ARE YOU ON?

 

[kaz]

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

Strawman

Oh... did not realize you were just drawing up a fallacious straw-man argument that "you are not equal unless you are superior."

So you agree then that homosexual marriages are not superior to heterosexual marriages. Fine, do you believe they are inferior or equal? And if so why.

As to the solution of banning federal and state governments from regulating marriage, and restricting said types of laws to contract or estate management, such as by only allowing civil unions of consenting adults to be regulated and removing restrictions on plural and sexual orientation. Well ok where's the support for that from our elected officials? Seems to me the tyrants in the majority like their marriages to be regulated, thus placing you and I in the minority and left to settle for a less than optimal solution.

Ask your questions without being an ass about it and I'll be glad to address them

 

[kaz]

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

He's not serious. He does it on purpose. Kaz doesn't think anyone should be civilly married (despite being civilly married).

I know you know this, which is why I don't get your insistance on calling me a homophobe in every argument. I realize that's what your liberal conditioning prescribes, and yet as you keep repeating you know it's not my issue with gay marriage. It just makes me not take you seriously.

He doesn't want to discuss the world where it is, but where he thinks it should be. If you ask him "as long as civil marriage exists, should gays have equal access to it?", despite being a self described libertarian, he won't answer that question and instead falls back to his "there should be no civil marriage argument". Back to the world where he wants it, not where it is.

I think you can't pin him down on the question because he thinks gays are icky and just doesn't want gays to have the same rights he enjoys with his civil marriage. I don't know if it's a deeply held religious belief for him or not, but he's decided to go full hyperbole over it instead of just answering the simple question;

As long as civil marriage exists, should gay couples have equal access to it for their relationships?

Actually, I've answered that question directly, many times. I don't answer it when you lace it with ridiculous strawmen and insults in the question, but I have taken every chance to answer it for you and others when you don't do that. I have two modes, serious and fun. You don't get to mix them, you have to pick. So again,

1) All government marriage is wrong, government should treat all of it's citizens equally. There are better solutions to everything government marriage does than government marriage. Taxes should be flat, the death tax is evil, parental rights and responsibilities should be related to biology and not paper, etc.

2) Adding gays to that extends inequality between married and single to more people. That a libertarian would believe that the path to ending government discrimination is by extending discrimination to more people is preposterous. It's also presposerous to argue to a libertarian that THEY have it, so you want it from government too. We don't like government. It's like asking Hitler to bless a Jewish wedding. I hate government, your need for validation from it isn't relevant to me and I don't grasp why it's relevant to you.

3) If you get gay marriage through the legislature, I am not for it, but I pretty much don't give a rat's ass. You're not going to get me demonstrating against it and it will be way, way down from the top of my list of government actions I oppose.

4) However, you are doing it criminally, by getting self appointed dictators to legislate from the bench and decree it. Every time they do that, they are more emboldened to decree more of my liberties away.

5) As for the 14th amendment. The role of the courts is literal, it is not to make life fair. When blacks were sent to separate schools, forced to sit in the back of the bus, use different drinking fountains, they were literally treated differently from other citizens. Being black changed how the law applied to you. Gays can literally marry the same people as straights. Either can enter man/woman government marriage, neither can enter single sex marriage. The job of the courts ends there. It's not fair? Fairness is a job for the legislature.

When I don't answer your questions, read this again and stop with the strawman crap putting words in my mouth and being an ass when you ask them. Or, insult me and have fun and don't expect a serious answer. But when you are posting with me, you pick. I'm fine either way. But when you choose to go with snotty questions, you won't get serious answers.

And if wishes were horses beggars would ride... but they aren't are they?

Um...OK? I answered the question I was asked. If that bothers you, that's your problem. PMSing is a bitch, but at least you'll be over it in a week.

 

[kaz]

Actually, I've answered that question directly, many times. I don't answer it when you lace it with ridiculous strawmen and insults in the question, but I have taken every chance to answer it for you and others when you don't do that. I have two modes, serious and fun. You don't get to mix them, you have to pick. So again,

Kaz, I'm curious on how you voted on the poll above? And how you feel about children's rights being a part of this conversation. No doubt you've seen the pictures I've posted of typical [even toned down in some cases] gay pride parades done in the presence of, and expectation/hopes of, children attending. Would you say that anyone from a subculture that promotes those types of acts in front of kids deserves legal access to our nation's most vulnerable citizens [orphaned kids] via the loophole of marriage or not?

Note to RKM, bodecea and Seawytch. Note she asked a question with no strawmen and without being an ass. That works for me every time if you actually expect an answer.

I didn't vote above because I wasn't comfortable with any answer as it was stated. As for the point that some gays are inappropriate for children to be around, I agree, but so are a lot of straights.. And I don't think children should be props for any political message whether I agree with the message or not. As for my view of gays, I do not consider gay relationships themselves to be any less than a heterosexual relationship (again note RKM, she asked without being an ass about it). I am a business owner, my VP of sales is a lesbian. I'm in the Triangle of NC and there is an active professional gay community here. They are great to me, they don't care that I'm not gay, I don't care that they are. I go to some social events, there is nothing inappropriate that I ever see. But it is a professional community. Then again, I'm typically most comfortable with straight professionals, professionals are my peers.

All that aside, I do consider children to be a factor though in gay government marriage. I don't give a crap about anyone's right to adopt, you don't have one, no one does. I only care what's in the best interest of the child. Humans evolved that a mother / father is the ideal situation. Men and women have different personalities. The ideal situation is a child gets both mother nurturing and father protecting and challenging. That's how we evolved. That is not to say that single parents or gay parents doom a child to life in any way. But ideal is mother and father.

I have multiple graduate degrees, I'm a business owner, I have two great kids, I have been married 25 years. However, I did not have a father growing up. I see the effect of that in my personality and life. I had to overcome not having a positive male role example to look to in my home. So again, sure, I succeeded, but it was not ideal and even at 51 I see the effect.

I just see it as if gays get government marriage, you know they are going to demand their right to equal adoption. Again, I don't think anyone has a right to adopt. I think for society when government is arranging adoptions, they should only care about the children and what's best for them. My belief government can do that is zero.

Realistically, gay marriage will happen and liberals will care about the social policy not the children. It's going to happen. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[kaz]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

Strawman. You and I have the same rights now. You want rights I don't have. And you want rights that individuals don't have. You have every right to your view, but you have no right to be on a high horse about it. You're exactly like the man/woman marriage crowd, you are both in favor of government discriminating against some citizens over others. You just draw the line in a different place. Tom-a-to, tom-ah-to.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

You have the same rights I do now, you don't want those, you want more. That's fine, but you want judges to commit crimes against their country to do it for you instead of your doing the work to get it legally yourself.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

Not under current law, no. Until the fetus lives outside the woman's body, it has no civil rights.