Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Irrelevant.

Whether one is gay as a consequence of choice or birth is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

The 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees each American the right to self-determination, and the right to make a choice concerning personal, private matters absent interference by the state:



As a fact of law gay Americans manifest a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to exercise one’s liberty as an individual.

If SOTUS believes "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct", then that would include cases of polygamy. Yet certain intimate relationships are still deemed socially unacceptable, based upon society's own choice of what they are willing to tolerate and not by any "morality" code of conduct.

So you concede that the social acceptability of homosexual relationships is tolerated by most Americans.

I believe I was addressing that there is no moral distinction from homosexuality from any other individual's "chosen" privately acceptable lifestyle, such as polygamy. The same reasoning can be used to satisfy anyone's chosen intimate decision. The ruling is not specific towards recognizing only one particular lifestyle choice while ignoring any other, based on the statement that it's a PERSONAL decision regarding one's own freedom pertaining to their private intimate conduct. What grounds do we have to deny ANY lifestyle choice? Certainly not any federal or state law as SCOTUS has clearly pointed out here.

 

[Seawytch]

You and no other Consenting Adult is being Denied Marriage in this Country.



Man/Woman is not Equal to Woman/Woman or Man/Man... I don't care what the Law says eventually, that Natural, Biological Fact will remain.



But you've Lied to yourself for many years so continuing to won't be difficult for you.



You and someone of the same sex cannot reflect Marriage any more than a Mother and Daughter or two Brothers can or Bill Clinton and his Dog... No, not Monica... He can Marry her if he wants.



Sorry... Get pissed at Nature's Design, not me.



I wasn't the one who Designed and Equipped you to Couple with the Opposite Sex...



By the way, it's that very thing why you are even typing today.



Always has been, always will be.







peace...

You do realize that we have marriage equality in 17 states and counting right? How can you continue to contend that gays already have marriage equality when mounting evidence to the contrary is piling up in Federal Court after Federal Court? Not a single court has agreed with your position, that I already have marriage equality.



Are you simply trying to delude yourself so you don't go completely over the edge? You seem like you're getting really close.

I've told you already, it doesn't matter what any Law says...



Man/Woman is not Equal to Man/Man and Woman/Woman... <Fact.



And you have yet to Deny it... Because you can't.



You have Rights as an Individual... You do not have Rights based on whatever combination of Humans you want call yourself part of. If you do then ultimately Sisters will Marry... And that will be partly your doing.







peace...

What the law says is a great deal more important than what Mal the bigot says. The law says I'm legally married. Awesome ain't it?

 

[007]

I guess gays have always had it okay in America, eh? Equal treatment, no discrimination or laws prohibiting their sexual orientation. Is that what you morons are trying to say?

Uh-oh... here comes the HOMO MAFIA.

You're in trouble now mal...

So you are a Patriot as long as you don't have to accept all the people in America?

No, I'm normal because I find two men butt fucking, disgusting.

Next.

 

[KevinWestern]

Uh-oh... here comes the HOMO MAFIA.

You're in trouble now mal...

So you are a Patriot as long as you don't have to accept all the people in America?

No, I'm normal because I find two men butt fucking, disgusting.

Next.

Normal is relative. In a gay bar, you'd be weird for thinking that.

You might want to pinpoint a more accurate word, given the rather ambiguous nature of the "normal".

 

[KevinWestern]

I've told you already, it doesn't matter what any Law says...

Man/Woman is not Equal to Man/Man and Woman/Woman... <Fact.

I think what's relevant here is whether or not people BELIEVE that same sex couples should be able to get married if they want to. In 1950 the answer was probably an overwhelming "no", thus no changes to the marriage law were necessary.

Today, the answer is likely "yes", and in 20 years (I believe) the answer will be an overwhelming "yes".

You can't fight the trend, which by all accounts is favoring on the side of gay marriage. I don't believe you can prevent this from becoming legal in all states within a matter of a few decades.

 

[GISMYS]

I've told you already, it doesn't matter what any Law says...

Man/Woman is not Equal to Man/Man and Woman/Woman... <Fact.

I think what's relevant here is whether or not people BELIEVE that same sex couples should be able to get married if they want to. In 1950 the answer was probably an overwhelming "no", thus no changes to the marriage law were necessary.

Today, the answer is likely "yes", and in 20 years (I believe) the answer will be an overwhelming "yes".

You can't fight the trend, which by all accounts is favoring on the side of gay marriage. I don't believe you can prevent this from becoming legal in all states within a matter of a few decades.

YES!!! IN THESE LAST DAYS JESUS SAYS we are to know it will again be like the evil days of NOAH'S time so much so that GOD sent the great flood to wype them all away!!! TODAY WE ARE SEEING EVIL SEXUAL PERVERSION CALLED GOOD, just another lifestyle!!!WRONG!!! ABOMINATION WILL BE ABOMINATION FOR ALL ETERNITY!!! NO MATTER what little evil sin loving man may say!!!

 

[KevinWestern]

I've told you already, it doesn't matter what any Law says...

Man/Woman is not Equal to Man/Man and Woman/Woman... <Fact.

I think what's relevant here is whether or not people BELIEVE that same sex couples should be able to get married if they want to. In 1950 the answer was probably an overwhelming "no", thus no changes to the marriage law were necessary.

Today, the answer is likely "yes", and in 20 years (I believe) the answer will be an overwhelming "yes".

You can't fight the trend, which by all accounts is favoring on the side of gay marriage. I don't believe you can prevent this from becoming legal in all states within a matter of a few decades.

YES!!! IN THESE LAST DAYS JESUS SAYS we are to know it will again be like the evil days of NOAH'S time so much so that GOD sent the great flood to wype them all away!!! TODAY WE ARE SEEING EVIL SEXUAL PERVERSION CALLED GOOD, just another lifestyle!!!WRONG!!! ABOMINATION WILL BE ABOMINATION FOR ALL ETERNITY!!! NO MATTER what little evil sin loving man may say!!!

Did God just sort of skip over this period? How come the world didn't end then?

Pederasty in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GreenBean]

Poor little Bean...now the haters are the minority and have to stay in the closet. Hope you like the view!

Haters ? I don't hate you , you poor pathetic confused little Dyke -I pity you . I speak to you unkindly and venemously in hopes of making you hate yourself - which you probably do subconsiously anyway, that may also be a contributing factor to your Mental Illness .

You knowShefag - there really is help for perverts like you - honesty - it works - you can conceivably be a whole person instead of the unwanted degenrate that you are. PM me and I'll refer you to a colleague of mine who specializes in helping people like you .

You certainly are earnest in your hate. Not terribly original, but we will give you an "E" for effort.

Tsk tsk tsk poor little SheFag .... I give you a "S" ... No sweety, that's not a "S" for Satisfactory

 

[Pop23]

And I told you that I don't really care about polygamy. It's a long shot and I wish you luck with it.

You made my point for me and don't even realize it. Procreation has nothing to do with civil marriage or it wouldn't be prohibited to some couples would it?

Another deflection from SeaWytch. Not surprised that you refuse to defend your greatest argument for SSM when it appears to be equally true for polygamists.

What is the compelling government interest in denying married status to polygamists?

Oh, and you do understand that you argue in support of incest. Two brothers apply for a marriage license. What compelling governmental interest would the state have in denying their marriage? After all, they can't procreate. Then a brother and a sister file for the same license and are told they can't. Procreation?

You opened the door. Let's see if you're willing to walk through it.

I'm not arguing with you about Polygamy. I think you're right. I think that the government would be hard pressed to come up with a compelling state interest in denying polygamist marriages...although they've done it before. Polygamy has been ruled on.

Nobody argues in support of incest you dolt, especially not the royal family. There is a compelling state interest in denying too close familial ties in marriage and yes it has to do with procreation. This is why cousins that are too close are denied a marriage license until they can prove they lack of fecundity. Too close familial ties is why marriage registries started in the first place.

You're trying to argue that gays should be denied a marriage license because they cannot procreate with each other "naturally". It is irrelevant as you have been shown time and again.

But let's go back to Polygamy for a minute since ya'll think that my being married to my life partner will lead us down that "slippery slope". Name a country with marriage equality that has also legalized polygamy. Name a county that has legalized polygamy and then went down the "slippery slope" to marriage equality for gays.

What do you mean nobody argues in support of incest?

Haven't you said dozens of times that the argument that there is no compelling government interest in denying........

What possible reason, using your standard, to deny a brother/brother or sister/sister from marrying since procreation is neither natural between same sex and since procreation is not necessary to marry?

The above is your argument. You added familial status later, but it would seem irrelevant to a brother couple who simply wants to share insurance benefits, or sisters who seek a better IRS status.

If procreation is not necessary in a marriage how can you tell these individuals they can't create the same union anyone else can?

 

[Pop23]

I've told you already, it doesn't matter what any Law says...

Man/Woman is not Equal to Man/Man and Woman/Woman... <Fact.

I think what's relevant here is whether or not people BELIEVE that same sex couples should be able to get married if they want to. In 1950 the answer was probably an overwhelming "no", thus no changes to the marriage law were necessary.

Today, the answer is likely "yes", and in 20 years (I believe) the answer will be an overwhelming "yes".

You can't fight the trend, which by all accounts is favoring on the side of gay marriage. I don't believe you can prevent this from becoming legal in all states within a matter of a few decades.

Wow, if your so confident just let the votes of the states stand.

 

[KevinWestern]

Wow, if your so confident just let the votes of the states stand.

I'm fine with going down the State vote path, however this is something that can be repeated. 60% of the population might be "against" in 1990 whereas 60% might be "in favor of" in 2014. Maybe we should have the states vote once every few years.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think what's relevant here is whether or not people BELIEVE that same sex couples should be able to get married if they want to. In 1950 the answer was probably an overwhelming "no", thus no changes to the marriage law were necessary.

Today, the answer is likely "yes", and in 20 years (I believe) the answer will be an overwhelming "yes".

You can't fight the trend, which by all accounts is favoring on the side of gay marriage. I don't believe you can prevent this from becoming legal in all states within a matter of a few decades.

YES!!! IN THESE LAST DAYS JESUS SAYS we are to know it will again be like the evil days of NOAH'S time so much so that GOD sent the great flood to wype them all away!!! TODAY WE ARE SEEING EVIL SEXUAL PERVERSION CALLED GOOD, just another lifestyle!!!WRONG!!! ABOMINATION WILL BE ABOMINATION FOR ALL ETERNITY!!! NO MATTER what little evil sin loving man may say!!!

Did God just sort of skip over this period? How come the world didn't end then?

Pederasty in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We didn't have the Constitution yet where natural laws were established in writing.
To haggle and fight over as the scriptures given to Moses in writing to be haggled over.

Now that we have two sources, of church and state laws,
we can better establish agreement on truth and justice by both witnesses to God's laws:
the scriptures or sacred laws of the church for the believers through all their tribes;
the civil laws or natural laws of the state for the secular gentiles through all nations.

Jesus is the spirit of Equal Justice,
Christ Jesus, Restorative Justice or Justice with Mercy
the spirit of the Laws that are supposed to fulfill
ALL laws of BOTH folds of the same flock,
the gentiles under natural laws
the believers under sacred laws.

We are still haggling over the letter of these laws
until we agree to settle conflicts by the spirit of truth and justice
to unite in agreement, and cast out all error and correct all wrong.

We are going through this now --
first a reformation of the church
and now a reformation of the state --
trying to reconcile the spirit and the letter of the laws to reach agreement, locally and globally.

This IS the process of JUSTICE and lasting peace being established for humanity.
What we resolve individually, one on one, then collectively affects society.

We have been going through this process since humans first became self-aware
of our free will and sought to reconcile our will with laws of Nature and God.

We are in the final stages of our long learning curve in the quest for truth and justice.

 

[Pop23]

Wow, if your so confident just let the votes of the states stand.

I'm fine with going down the State vote path, however this is something that can be repeated. 60% of the population might be "against" in 1990 whereas 60% might be "in favor of" in 2014. Maybe we should have the states vote once every few years.

I'd actually be all for that, but once voted in favor of it's permanent within that states border.

It'd be put up or shut up.

 

[KevinWestern]

Wow, if your so confident just let the votes of the states stand.

I'm fine with going down the State vote path, however this is something that can be repeated. 60% of the population might be "against" in 1990 whereas 60% might be "in favor of" in 2014. Maybe we should have the states vote once every few years.

I'd actually be all for that, but once voted in favor of it's permanent within that states border.

It'd be put up or shut up.

No, Pop. Under that logic all of the laws that were "one and done-ed" in 1786 would remain all throughout history. Popular opinion is ever shifting, and I think these laws ought to be updated continually to better reflect the norms and opinions of the society at hand as they continue to evolve.

Why would you be afraid/weary of a continual vote?

 

[Seawytch]

Another deflection from SeaWytch. Not surprised that you refuse to defend your greatest argument for SSM when it appears to be equally true for polygamists.



What is the compelling government interest in denying married status to polygamists?



Oh, and you do understand that you argue in support of incest. Two brothers apply for a marriage license. What compelling governmental interest would the state have in denying their marriage? After all, they can't procreate. Then a brother and a sister file for the same license and are told they can't. Procreation?



You opened the door. Let's see if you're willing to walk through it.

I'm not arguing with you about Polygamy. I think you're right. I think that the government would be hard pressed to come up with a compelling state interest in denying polygamist marriages...although they've done it before. Polygamy has been ruled on.



Nobody argues in support of incest you dolt, especially not the royal family. There is a compelling state interest in denying too close familial ties in marriage and yes it has to do with procreation. This is why cousins that are too close are denied a marriage license until they can prove they lack of fecundity. Too close familial ties is why marriage registries started in the first place.



You're trying to argue that gays should be denied a marriage license because they cannot procreate with each other "naturally". It is irrelevant as you have been shown time and again.



But let's go back to Polygamy for a minute since ya'll think that my being married to my life partner will lead us down that "slippery slope". Name a country with marriage equality that has also legalized polygamy. Name a county that has legalized polygamy and then went down the "slippery slope" to marriage equality for gays.

What do you mean nobody argues in support of incest?



Haven't you said dozens of times that the argument that there is no compelling government interest in denying........



What possible reason, using your standard, to deny a brother/brother or sister/sister from marrying since procreation is neither natural between same sex and since procreation is not necessary to marry?



The above is your argument. You added familial status later, but it would seem irrelevant to a brother couple who simply wants to share insurance benefits, or sisters who seek a better IRS status.



If procreation is not necessary in a marriage how can you tell these individuals they can't create the same union anyone else can?

Find a single case of someone suing to let siblings marry. I will reiterate...NOBODY is arguing for siblings to marry.

 

[GreenBean]

I've told you already, it doesn't matter what any Law says...

Man/Woman is not Equal to Man/Man and Woman/Woman... <Fact.

I think what's relevant here is whether or not people BELIEVE that same sex couples should be able to get married if they want to. In 1950 the answer was probably an overwhelming "no", thus no changes to the marriage law were necessary.

Today, the answer is likely "yes", and in 20 years (I believe) the answer will be an overwhelming "yes".

You can't fight the trend, which by all accounts is favoring on the side of gay marriage. I don't believe you can prevent this from becoming legal in all states within a matter of a few decades.

It's not even a matter of what people believe, it's a matter of what they have a right to.

If we governed by Pure Democracy - Native Americans and African Americans would have become extinct a few generations back. I know it may seem strange , my arguing in favor of a Gay Cause - but you simply can not, as a rational person who claims to believe in the standards this country , who believes in our constitution and our continuing freedom argue with a straight face that Gays have no right to Marry. They have the same rights as you and I - despite their mental illness.

 

[GreenBean]

YES!!! IN THESE LAST DAYS JESUS SAYS we are to know it will again be like the evil days of NOAH'S time so much so that GOD sent the great flood to wype them all away!!! TODAY WE ARE SEEING EVIL SEXUAL PERVERSION CALLED GOOD, just another lifestyle!!!WRONG!!! ABOMINATION WILL BE ABOMINATION FOR ALL ETERNITY!!! NO MATTER what little evil sin loving man may say!!!

Did God just sort of skip over this period? How come the world didn't end then?

Pederasty in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We didn't have the Constitution yet where natural laws were established in writing.
To haggle and fight over as the scriptures given to Moses in writing to be haggled over.

Now that we have two sources, of church and state laws,
we can better establish agreement on truth and justice by both witnesses to God's laws:
the scriptures or sacred laws of the church for the believers through all their tribes;
the civil laws or natural laws of the state for the secular gentiles through all nations.

Jesus is the spirit of Equal Justice,
Christ Jesus, Restorative Justice or Justice with Mercy
the spirit of the Laws that are supposed to fulfill
ALL laws of BOTH folds of the same flock,
the gentiles under natural laws
the believers under sacred laws.

We are still haggling over the letter of these laws
until we agree to settle conflicts by the spirit of truth and justice
to unite in agreement, and cast out all error and correct all wrong.

We are going through this now --
first a reformation of the church
and now a reformation of the state --
trying to reconcile the spirit and the letter of the laws to reach agreement, locally and globally.

This IS the process of JUSTICE and lasting peace being established for humanity.
What we resolve individually, one on one, then collectively affects society.

We have been going through this process since humans first became self-aware
of our free will and sought to reconcile our will with laws of Nature and God.

We are in the final stages of our long learning curve in the quest for truth and justice.

A little long winded Emily, but well put ....

OT: see you evil empire

 

[KevinWestern]

It's not even a matter of what people believe, it's a matter of what they have a right to.

If we governed by Pure Democracy - Native Americans and African Americans would have become extinct a few generations back.

I know it may seem strange , my arguing in favor of a Gay Cause - but you simply can not, as a rational person who claims to believe in the standards this country , who believes in our constitution and our continuing freedom argue with a straight face that Gays have no right to Marry. They have the same rights as you and I - despite their mental illness.

Point is the TREND is support for same-sex marriage.

You can&#8217;t continue to deny the installment of same-sex marriage when 80% of the population is in favor of it, Greenbean. We might not be there yet, but by all means the TREND is going in that direction. Older people tend not to support while younger people overwhelmingly support. It&#8217;s a fact of life that in 30 years the opinion of the younger people will win out (because the old people will either be retired or gone).

That&#8217;s just the way of things amigo.

 

[Pop23]

I'm not arguing with you about Polygamy. I think you're right. I think that the government would be hard pressed to come up with a compelling state interest in denying polygamist marriages...although they've done it before. Polygamy has been ruled on.



Nobody argues in support of incest you dolt, especially not the royal family. There is a compelling state interest in denying too close familial ties in marriage and yes it has to do with procreation. This is why cousins that are too close are denied a marriage license until they can prove they lack of fecundity. Too close familial ties is why marriage registries started in the first place.



You're trying to argue that gays should be denied a marriage license because they cannot procreate with each other "naturally". It is irrelevant as you have been shown time and again.



But let's go back to Polygamy for a minute since ya'll think that my being married to my life partner will lead us down that "slippery slope". Name a country with marriage equality that has also legalized polygamy. Name a county that has legalized polygamy and then went down the "slippery slope" to marriage equality for gays.

What do you mean nobody argues in support of incest?



Haven't you said dozens of times that the argument that there is no compelling government interest in denying........



What possible reason, using your standard, to deny a brother/brother or sister/sister from marrying since procreation is neither natural between same sex and since procreation is not necessary to marry?



The above is your argument. You added familial status later, but it would seem irrelevant to a brother couple who simply wants to share insurance benefits, or sisters who seek a better IRS status.



If procreation is not necessary in a marriage how can you tell these individuals they can't create the same union anyone else can?

Find a single case of someone suing to let siblings marry. I will reiterate...NOBODY is arguing for siblings to marry.

Get real. None will happen until SSM is more widespread.

 

[KevinWestern]

Get real. None will happen until SSM is more widespread.

So lets say incestuous marriages are now legal between US adults. What happens next?

Do we have like 11 sets of brother/sister couples who would actually want to marry each start to line up? Does this translate to societal breakdown? Hardly..

You realize this is an extremely, extremely, rare occurrence today (incestuous relationships between adults) that would have absolutely no impact on shaping the norms or trends for the greater society, right?