Big wins for same sex marriage

[rightwinger]

Why only two?

I don't know....why?

If three consenting adults have an agreement to all marry...what business is it of the state?

Why is it perfectly legal for a man to marry a woman and have a mistress on the side but if he chooses to make a legal commitment to both women he is breaking the law?

Exactly, if you want 'equal rights', you can't place any restrictions on it. Once that happens, it really has no meaning at all, so why bother? So, we're back to legally treating each person as an individual regardless of their personal relationships via taxation and other areas of government. Marriage was originally done to promote the family unit, which has been proven to be the most successful establishment of promoting human civilization, and raising children into successful adults. But, the left has been working at tearing down the family unit pretty much since it got started decades ago. The removal of God from society is for the same reasons. Why stop now when you're so close to actually doing it? I always have to ask, what then? The answer to that is government. Government becomes the supporter, the family, the sustainer, the provider. Replace God with government as well, you don't need God. You don't need family. Government is everything. That's the end goal.

Again, why is it a governments job to define a family unit?

This is where the problems arose with interracial couples and gay couples. These family units formed on their own naturally. You can't help who you fall in love with. It was only outsiders who said "yucky" when looking at a mixed race or gay relationship that forced the government to pass restrictions.

I would never enter a polygomous relationship. i don't think I could handle it anyway. But I fail to see where they hurt society other than the "yucky" factor

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've seen 'gay marriage' on the ballots, not 'civil unions'.

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007—Added a new section (15-A).​

Many, ballot initiatives like the Virginia Amendment barred not only Civil Marriages based on gender, they barred the creation of Civil Unions. Then of course there was the Washington ballot initiative to stop full Civil Unions because "they were to much like marriage".



>>>>

All the ones that I have seen have been stated as 'marriage'. I support civil unions for legal reasons, and that's what this fight is supposed to be about, the legal battle. I don't even care if everything is seen as a 'civil union' in the eyes of the law. The government doesn't determine what my relationship is in my opinion. Marriage is done when you make vows to each other that is done in the eyes of God and blessed as such in a religious ceremony.

You previous statement while I know was just referencing yourself, implied there were no impediments to Civil Unions. I just supplied an example of a ballot question (that was passed) that barred even the recognition of Civil Unions.

Then of course the federal government does not recognize Civil Unions at all.

That's why the use of the term "marriage" is poor terminology. One should define whether they are talking about Civil Marriage or Religious Marriage. Once exists under the law (Civil Marraige) and one is recognized by a religious organization (Religious Marriage). Two different animals. One can be civilly married with no religious component, one can be religiously married with no civil component, or you can have both.

>>>>

 

[Newby]

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007—Added a new section (15-A).​

Many, ballot initiatives like the Virginia Amendment barred not only Civil Marriages based on gender, they barred the creation of Civil Unions. Then of course there was the Washington ballot initiative to stop full Civil Unions because "they were to much like marriage".



>>>>

All the ones that I have seen have been stated as 'marriage'. I support civil unions for legal reasons, and that's what this fight is supposed to be about, the legal battle. I don't even care if everything is seen as a 'civil union' in the eyes of the law. The government doesn't determine what my relationship is in my opinion. Marriage is done when you make vows to each other that is done in the eyes of God and blessed as such in a religious ceremony.

You previous statement while I know was just referencing yourself, implied there were no impediments to Civil Unions. I just supplied an example of a ballot question (that was passed) that barred even the recognition of Civil Unions.

Then of course the federal government does not recognize Civil Unions at all.

That's why the use of the term "marriage" is poor terminology. One should define whether they are talking about Civil Marriage or Religious Marriage. Once exists under the law (Civil Marraige) and one is recognized by a religious organization (Religious Marriage). Two different animals. One can be civilly married with no religious component, one can be religiously married with no civil component, or you can have both.

>>>>

No, there's never been an adjective needed to describe marriage before. Marriage has been defined long before the progressive gay movement came along. They should find their own word to define their union, that's what most people object too. They don't just want equality under the law, they want to ursurp marriage and its meaning as revenge against a group that they feel they've been persecuted by.

 

[WorldWatcher]

All the ones that I have seen have been stated as 'marriage'. I support civil unions for legal reasons, and that's what this fight is supposed to be about, the legal battle. I don't even care if everything is seen as a 'civil union' in the eyes of the law. The government doesn't determine what my relationship is in my opinion. Marriage is done when you make vows to each other that is done in the eyes of God and blessed as such in a religious ceremony.

You previous statement while I know was just referencing yourself, implied there were no impediments to Civil Unions. I just supplied an example of a ballot question (that was passed) that barred even the recognition of Civil Unions.

Then of course the federal government does not recognize Civil Unions at all.

That's why the use of the term "marriage" is poor terminology. One should define whether they are talking about Civil Marriage or Religious Marriage. Once exists under the law (Civil Marraige) and one is recognized by a religious organization (Religious Marriage). Two different animals. One can be civilly married with no religious component, one can be religiously married with no civil component, or you can have both.

>>>>

No, there's never been an adjective needed to describe marriage before. Marriage has been defined long before the progressive gay movement came along. They should find their own word to define their union, that's what most people object too. They don't just want equality under the law, they want to ursurp marriage and its meaning as revenge against a group that they feel they've been persecuted by.

Which definition would that be?

1. When women were basically sold to their husbands?

2. When families arranged marriages for minor children?

3. Marriages between one man and multiple women which is not only biblical, but is in fact part of marriage to this day in other countries?

4. When marriage was defined under the law as only being allowed between white and white or coloreds and coloreds?​

There has not been, nor is there now one static definition of "marriage" which is universally accepted in this country and around the world. Some might like that to be the case, but it's not.



(Not saying I agree with the last sentence, but lynchings, imprisonment, confining to mental institutions, electroshock therapy, firing from jobs, and social stigma sounds like a solid basis for feeling persecuted.)

>>>>

 

[Newby]

You previous statement while I know was just referencing yourself, implied there were no impediments to Civil Unions. I just supplied an example of a ballot question (that was passed) that barred even the recognition of Civil Unions.

Then of course the federal government does not recognize Civil Unions at all.

That's why the use of the term "marriage" is poor terminology. One should define whether they are talking about Civil Marriage or Religious Marriage. Once exists under the law (Civil Marraige) and one is recognized by a religious organization (Religious Marriage). Two different animals. One can be civilly married with no religious component, one can be religiously married with no civil component, or you can have both.

>>>>

No, there's never been an adjective needed to describe marriage before. Marriage has been defined long before the progressive gay movement came along. They should find their own word to define their union, that's what most people object too. They don't just want equality under the law, they want to ursurp marriage and its meaning as revenge against a group that they feel they've been persecuted by.

Which definition would that be?

1. When women were basically sold to their husbands?

2. When families arranged marriages for minor children?

3. Marriages between one man and multiple women which is not only biblical, but is in fact part of marriage to this day in other countries?

4. When marriage was defined under the law as only being allowed between white and white or coloreds and coloreds?​

There has not been, nor is there now one static definition of "marriage" which is universally accepted in this country and around the world. Some might like that to be the case, but it's not.



(Not saying I agree with the last sentence, but lynchings, imprisonment, confining to mental institutions, electroshock therapy, firing from jobs, and social stigma sounds like a solid basis for feeling persecuted.)

>>>>

Since marriage has such a terrible history as an institution in your opinion, why is it so wanted by gays? It's funny how you bash it, but then say on the other hand that some people are terrible for not wanting to redefine it so another group can 'enjoy' it.

Regardless of it's different states, or how people thru history abused it for control or power, it's always been defined the same way and hasn't needed an adjective to explain it.

 

[rightwinger]

No, there's never been an adjective needed to describe marriage before. Marriage has been defined long before the progressive gay movement came along. They should find their own word to define their union, that's what most people object too. They don't just want equality under the law, they want to ursurp marriage and its meaning as revenge against a group that they feel they've been persecuted by.

Which definition would that be?

1. When women were basically sold to their husbands?

2. When families arranged marriages for minor children?

3. Marriages between one man and multiple women which is not only biblical, but is in fact part of marriage to this day in other countries?

4. When marriage was defined under the law as only being allowed between white and white or coloreds and coloreds?​

There has not been, nor is there now one static definition of "marriage" which is universally accepted in this country and around the world. Some might like that to be the case, but it's not.



(Not saying I agree with the last sentence, but lynchings, imprisonment, confining to mental institutions, electroshock therapy, firing from jobs, and social stigma sounds like a solid basis for feeling persecuted.)

>>>>

Since marriage has such a terrible history as an institution in your opinion, why is it so wanted by gays? It's funny how you bash it, but then say on the other hand that some people are terrible for not wanting to redefine it so another group can 'enjoy' it.

Regardless of it's different states, or how people thru history abused it for control or power, it's always been defined the same way and hasn't needed an adjective to explain it.

I don't think he is saying it is terrible as much as it has evolved. Marriage has changed significantly in the last 100 years. Woman are more independent. They are not imprisoned in a bad marriage. A 20 year old woman has career options, she does not have to run out and find a man to support her.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, there's never been an adjective needed to describe marriage before. Marriage has been defined long before the progressive gay movement came along. They should find their own word to define their union, that's what most people object too. They don't just want equality under the law, they want to ursurp marriage and its meaning as revenge against a group that they feel they've been persecuted by.

Which definition would that be?

1. When women were basically sold to their husbands?

2. When families arranged marriages for minor children?

3. Marriages between one man and multiple women which is not only biblical, but is in fact part of marriage to this day in other countries?

4. When marriage was defined under the law as only being allowed between white and white or coloreds and coloreds?​

There has not been, nor is there now one static definition of "marriage" which is universally accepted in this country and around the world. Some might like that to be the case, but it's not.



(Not saying I agree with the last sentence, but lynchings, imprisonment, confining to mental institutions, electroshock therapy, firing from jobs, and social stigma sounds like a solid basis for feeling persecuted.)

>>>>

Since marriage has such a terrible history as an institution in your opinion, why is it so wanted by gays? It's funny how you bash it, but then say on the other hand that some people are terrible for not wanting to redefine it so another group can 'enjoy' it.

Sorry if you think pointing out the historical changes in marriage over the years is "bashing" it, nothing of the sort. I'm not "bashing" marriage - I've been married once for 25 years to the same woman. Neither is pointing out that 2+2=5 is "bashing" mathematics.

The history of marriage is what it is.

I could give two Tink's Farts if a same-sex couple wants to get Civilly Married or not, I do expect though for the government to upload the ideals of liberty and freedom espoused in the preamble of the Constitution which says that this nation is based on liberty and justice. Sorry. Invidious and capricious discriminatory laws without a compelling government interest neither establishes liberty or justice.

Regardless of it's different states, or how people thru history abused it for control or power, it's always been defined the same way and hasn't needed an adjective to explain it.

Your right Civil Marriage doesn't need adjectives to describe it. A same-sex couple is civilly married under the law just the same as a different-sex couple is civilly married under the law, no adjective needed to denote the gender composition and in fact no such designation exists under the laws where such marriages are allowed.

And I disagree re: marriage it hasn't "always been defined the same way". It has been defined as one man and one woman, it has been defined as one man and many women, it has been defined as whites to whites and colored to colored. Those are not "always the same way".



>>>>

 

[g5000]

Since marriage has such a terrible history as an institution in your opinion, why is it so wanted by gays?

It has been explained many times.

Gays want the same cash and prizes awarded to other married couples by the government. They want equal protection of the laws which shower these cash and prizes on everyone else.

Why do people like you find this so difficult to understand?

Married tax returns, Social Security death benefits, health insurance coverage for spouses, etc., etc., etc.

You expend an awful lot of energy dispersing a lot of red herrings and smoke and mirrors to obscure this very simple concept.



.

 

[Newby]

Which definition would that be?

1. When women were basically sold to their husbands?

2. When families arranged marriages for minor children?

3. Marriages between one man and multiple women which is not only biblical, but is in fact part of marriage to this day in other countries?

4. When marriage was defined under the law as only being allowed between white and white or coloreds and coloreds?​

There has not been, nor is there now one static definition of "marriage" which is universally accepted in this country and around the world. Some might like that to be the case, but it's not.



(Not saying I agree with the last sentence, but lynchings, imprisonment, confining to mental institutions, electroshock therapy, firing from jobs, and social stigma sounds like a solid basis for feeling persecuted.)

>>>>

Since marriage has such a terrible history as an institution in your opinion, why is it so wanted by gays? It's funny how you bash it, but then say on the other hand that some people are terrible for not wanting to redefine it so another group can 'enjoy' it.

Sorry if you think pointing out the historical changes in marriage over the years is "bashing" it, nothing of the sort. I'm not "bashing" marriage - I've been married once for 25 years to the same woman. Neither is pointing out that 2+2=5 is "bashing" mathematics.

The history of marriage is what it is.

I could give two Tink's Farts if a same-sex couple wants to get Civilly Married or not, I do expect though for the government to upload the ideals of liberty and freedom espoused in the preamble of the Constitution which says that this nation is based on liberty and justice. Sorry. Invidious and capricious discriminatory laws without a compelling government interest neither establishes liberty or justice.

Regardless of it's different states, or how people thru history abused it for control or power, it's always been defined the same way and hasn't needed an adjective to explain it.

Your right Civil Marriage doesn't need adjectives to describe it. A same-sex couple is civilly married under the law just the same as a different-sex couple is civilly married under the law, no adjective needed to denote the gender composition and in fact no such designation exists under the laws where such marriages are allowed.

And I disagree re: marriage it hasn't "always been defined the same way". It has been defined as one man and one woman, it has been defined as one man and many women, it has been defined as whites to whites and colored to colored. Those are not "always the same way".



>>>>

So you're ready to admit that it's not all about 'equal treatment under the law' then? It's about 'progressing' marriage to a meaning that you find acceptable, i.e. changing the definition? The definition or what it's called shouldn't matter at all as long as 'equal treatment under the law' is established. If that were the primary goal, we wouldn't be having these discussions, so obviously the goal is more broad than that. I think it would be better if your side would quit lying about the agenda and just state what it is you want. You want to force current culture and all those in it to see being gay as normal, and not only be accepted, but embraced. You label anyone who doesn't agree as a 'homophobe', the media places gay couples in almost every television show that's out there, and you're going to bash your principals and beliefs into the new generation regardless of what it takes to make it happen via the education system. Yet on the other hand, your motto is supposedly 'live and let live', but you don't practice it.

I have no trouble with equal treatment under the law, but you can't force people to accept or embrace something they don't agree with on a personal and/or religious level or they're then ostracized. If you do that, you're no better than the people who ostracize someone for being gay, you just become the flip side of the same coin.

 

[Newby]

Since marriage has such a terrible history as an institution in your opinion, why is it so wanted by gays?

It has been explained many times.

Gays want the same cash and prizes awarded to other married couples by the government. They want equal protection of the laws which shower these cash and prizes on everyone else.

Why do people like you find this so difficult to understand?

Married tax returns, Social Security death benefits, health insurance coverage for spouses, etc., etc., etc.

You expend an awful lot of energy dispersing a lot of red herrings and smoke and mirrors to obscure this very simple concept.



.

See my previous post. It's about more than equal treatment under the law. There are ways to do that without changing the meaning or instituion of marraige. They aren't interested in any other ways. The agenda is far more than what you stated.

 

[g5000]

Since marriage has such a terrible history as an institution in your opinion, why is it so wanted by gays?

It has been explained many times.

Gays want the same cash and prizes awarded to other married couples by the government. They want equal protection of the laws which shower these cash and prizes on everyone else.

Why do people like you find this so difficult to understand?

Married tax returns, Social Security death benefits, health insurance coverage for spouses, etc., etc., etc.

You expend an awful lot of energy dispersing a lot of red herrings and smoke and mirrors to obscure this very simple concept.



.

See my previous post. It's about more than equal treatment under the law. There are ways to do that without changing the meaning or instituion of marraige. They aren't interested in any other ways. The agenda is far more than what you stated.

This "agenda" you think is there is all in your mind. The agenda is equality. Ooooooooh, how awful!

The objection to the use of the word "marriage" is as stupid as it gets.

As has been pointed out, the definition of marriage has been redefined many times. Most recently, it was redefined from "two people of the same race". And people like you didn't like interracial unions being called "marriages" either.

Bigotry and unequal treatment should not be coddled.

Equal protection of the laws. Simple. Uncomplicated.

.

 

[Qball]

I don't agree with it, but I will say it's good that SSM was legalized the right way via public vote.

 

[g5000]

I don't agree with it, but I will say it's good that SSM was legalized the right way via public vote.

So you like the idea of rights being decided by popular vote, eh?

I guess you are not a native born American. That's not how we do things. We have this weird hangup about inalienable rights, see.


.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I have read absolutely none of the this thread besides the title... but I find it hilarious people seem to think he is gonna do a buncha shit in his second term, with a divided congress, that he didn't do his first term with a super majority.

 

[Newby]

It has been explained many times.

Gays want the same cash and prizes awarded to other married couples by the government. They want equal protection of the laws which shower these cash and prizes on everyone else.

Why do people like you find this so difficult to understand?

Married tax returns, Social Security death benefits, health insurance coverage for spouses, etc., etc., etc.

You expend an awful lot of energy dispersing a lot of red herrings and smoke and mirrors to obscure this very simple concept.



.

See my previous post. It's about more than equal treatment under the law. There are ways to do that without changing the meaning or instituion of marraige. They aren't interested in any other ways. The agenda is far more than what you stated.

This "agenda" you think is there is all in your mind. The agenda is equality. Ooooooooh, how awful!

The objection to the use of the word "marriage" is as stupid as it gets.
As has been pointed out, the definition of marriage has been redefined many times. Most recently, it was redefined from "two people of the same race". And people like you didn't like interracial unions being called "marriages" either.

Bigotry and unequal treatment should not be coddled.

Equal protection of the laws. Simple. Uncomplicated.

.

No, the agenda is not 'all in my mind', it's very real. Tell me this isn't an agenda. Why do they care how many gay characters on on tv shows?

http://www.glaad.org/releases/glaad-study-records-highest-percentage-ever-lgbt-series-regulars-broadcast-television-cable

October 5, 2012
GLAAD Study Records Highest Percentage Ever of LGBT Series Regulars on Broadcast Television, Cable LGBT Character Count also Rises
Four of Five Broadcast Networks Increase Percentage of LGBT Characters, ABC Ranks Highest
Contact:
Matt Kane
Associate Director of Entertainment Media, GLAAD
(323) 634-2013
[email protected]

Glee found to be most inclusive program on broadcast television, True Blood has highest number of LGBT characters on cable

Los Angeles, CA, October 5, 2013 - GLAAD, the nation’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media advocacy and anti-defamation organization, today released the annual Where We Are on TV report; a comprehensive review of scripted LGBT primetime characters in the upcoming 2012-2013 television season. After a decrease last year, the number of regular lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) characters on broadcast networks has risen to the highest ever recorded, while the overall LGBT character count also increased on cable television.

Then you need to ask gay folks why they insist on it being called marriage, because they do. Apparently the word is just as important to them, yet that's okay. Your view is hypocritical.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Children, groups, humans and animals...............

All should have "equal protections" to get "married".............Its only a contract after all Lol

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since marriage has such a terrible history as an institution in your opinion, why is it so wanted by gays? It's funny how you bash it, but then say on the other hand that some people are terrible for not wanting to redefine it so another group can 'enjoy' it.

Sorry if you think pointing out the historical changes in marriage over the years is "bashing" it, nothing of the sort. I'm not "bashing" marriage - I've been married once for 25 years to the same woman. Neither is pointing out that 2+2=5 is "bashing" mathematics.

The history of marriage is what it is.

I could give two Tink's Farts if a same-sex couple wants to get Civilly Married or not, I do expect though for the government to upload the ideals of liberty and freedom espoused in the preamble of the Constitution which says that this nation is based on liberty and justice. Sorry. Invidious and capricious discriminatory laws without a compelling government interest neither establishes liberty or justice.

Regardless of it's different states, or how people thru history abused it for control or power, it's always been defined the same way and hasn't needed an adjective to explain it.

Your right Civil Marriage doesn't need adjectives to describe it. A same-sex couple is civilly married under the law just the same as a different-sex couple is civilly married under the law, no adjective needed to denote the gender composition and in fact no such designation exists under the laws where such marriages are allowed.

And I disagree re: marriage it hasn't "always been defined the same way". It has been defined as one man and one woman, it has been defined as one man and many women, it has been defined as whites to whites and colored to colored. Those are not "always the same way".



>>>>

So you're ready to admit that it's not all about 'equal treatment under the law' then?

You must be talking about someone else because you aren't getting that from my posts.

It's about 'progressing' marriage to a meaning that you find acceptable, i.e. changing the definition?

1. Nope, it's about the government treating it's citizens equally unless there is a compelling government interest in treating them differently.

2. As previously pointed out the "definition" has changed many times. And not "tradition" is not a compelling government interest.

The definition or what it's called shouldn't matter at all as long as 'equal treatment under the law' is established.

Correct, call all processes of establishing a family relationship between consenting, non-related, adults "Civil Unions" for same-sex and different-sex couples. That would be fine. Or call them Civil Marriages for same-sex and different-sex couples. That would be fine.

There is no functional difference between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple that (in all places) is allowed to Civilly Marry and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple (in most places) are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

If that were the primary goal, we wouldn't be having these discussions, so obviously the goal is more broad than that.

You can imagine as you wish.

I think it would be better if your side would quit lying about the agenda and just state what it is you want.

I don't speak for a side, I speak for myself.

You want to force current culture and all those in it to see being gay as normal, and not only be accepted, but embraced.

Nope, I want the government to not discriminate against it's citizens for no compelling reason other than some find homosexuals "icky" or that their religion says they are an "abomination". Don't like the idea of sex with someone of the same gender, then don't have sex with someone of the same gender. That does not warrant discriminatory laws.

You label anyone who doesn't agree as a 'homophobe',

Sorry, I don't label people.

the media places gay couples in almost every television show that's out there, and you're going to bash your principals and beliefs into the new generation regardless of what it takes to make it happen via the education system.

Last I checked homosexuals were 3% on the low end, 10% on the high end.

Think of any television show you wish, if it has 10 people in then in the real world the odds are that at least one would be homosexual.

Yet on the other hand, your motto is supposedly 'live and let live', but you don't practice it.

Sure I do.

If you don't like sex with someone of the same gender, don't have sex with someone of the same gender.

If you don't want to marry someone of the same gender, don't marry someone of the same gender.

Finally, I support the repeal of public accommodation laws as they apply to private businesses. Freedom and Liberty are sometimes messy, but the alternative is Social Authoritarians on the left and Social Authoritarians on the right both espousing big government to solve their issues because they think something is offensive.

I have no trouble with equal treatment under the law, but you can't force people to accept or embrace something they don't agree with on a personal and/or religious level or they're then ostracized. If you do that, you're no better than the people who ostracize someone for being gay, you just become the flip side of the same coin.

I thought you were against allowing Civil Marriage to same-sex couples which would be equal treatment under the law?

I have no desire to force anyone to accept anything. I support decisions based at the private level not the government level like left and right social authoritarians. I'm willing to accept some messy instances of liberty and freedom in the name of really truly smaller less intrusive government. If a bed and breakfast doesn't want to host a same-sex wedding - fine by me. If a Jewish deli owner doesn't want to sell a chicken sandwich to a Muslim - fine by me. If the owner of a used care retailer only wants to hire young hot chicks - fine by me. If a restaurant owner wants to put a sign in their window - "No Coloreds Allowed" - fine by me. (I may choose not to frequent such an establishment, I may choose to tell my friends about it, etc. - but I don't think the government should put a stop to it.)





Is that a little clearer or will you continue to attribute to me things which I haven't said and don't support?



>>>>

 

[Plasmaball]

No, there's never been an adjective needed to describe marriage before. Marriage has been defined long before the progressive gay movement came along. They should find their own word to define their union, that's what most people object too. They don't just want equality under the law, they want to ursurp marriage and its meaning as revenge against a group that they feel they've been persecuted by.

Which definition would that be?

1. When women were basically sold to their husbands?

2. When families arranged marriages for minor children?

3. Marriages between one man and multiple women which is not only biblical, but is in fact part of marriage to this day in other countries?

4. When marriage was defined under the law as only being allowed between white and white or coloreds and coloreds?​

There has not been, nor is there now one static definition of "marriage" which is universally accepted in this country and around the world. Some might like that to be the case, but it's not.



(Not saying I agree with the last sentence, but lynchings, imprisonment, confining to mental institutions, electroshock therapy, firing from jobs, and social stigma sounds like a solid basis for feeling persecuted.)

>>>>

Since marriage has such a terrible history as an institution in your opinion, why is it so wanted by gays? It's funny how you bash it, but then say on the other hand that some people are terrible for not wanting to redefine it so another group can 'enjoy' it.

Regardless of it's different states, or how people thru history abused it for control or power, it's always been defined the same way and hasn't needed an adjective to explain it.

wow, move those goal posts......You don't have an argument. Just concede and move on.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I have read absolutely none of the this thread besides the title... but I find it hilarious people seem to think he is gonna do a buncha shit in his second term, with a divided congress, that he didn't do his first term with a super majority.

^

 

[Plasmaball]

Loving your assumptions.

I had a gay brother. His relationship with his partner lasted longer than any of his siblings' marriages.

As I said, I don't give a shit if a man marries a man or a woman. And, if the government gets out of the marriage business, no one can do shit about it if they want to marry.

Keep the government IN the marriage business (rather than treating it as a simple contract, because that is all it is, legally), and folks are going to have a say.

Just like birth control pills, just like healthcare, just like abortions, etc. If we want liberties, then do it right - keep, or get, the fucking government out of it.

So you agree with but dont at the sametime.
I didnt assume anything. I speculated what would happen, and it seems you agree with me.

Government will never get out of the marriage business, so therefore government should treat its people equally. Its that simple.

Again who is making it special Si?
Either we are equal or we are not. Its that simple. Which side do you fall on Si?

Anytime you want to answer.

x No one is making it special; it already IS. And, why is that? Because the fucking government is involved.

I still recall my first political discussion with a catechism teacher when in grammar school. That's when I learned that when a priest marries someone, he is acting as an agent of the government. A church official is acting as an agent of the government??? Having just learned about the Bill of Rights, my catechism teacher wasn't too pleased with me for asking that.

Anyway, that's MY solution to making it equal. - make it the contract it is and keep in in the local jurisdictions. The commerce clause takes care of the rest should the couple move.

Seems quite simple. If we want the government out of our bedrooms, then get it out of them.

What's your solution?

Um something is only special if someone deems it special. You are contradicting yourself. But anyways...

It already is a contract.
So you want a federal law stating marriage ( Or coooontract ) is legal everywhere. Ok thats still not keeping the feds out of marritract.

My solution is simple. All marriages ( excluding kids and animals ) are legal.
Either we are equal or we are not.

Again Si are we equal or are we not. You havent answered this question.