Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
Your first statement is incomprehensible. You can always find bad examples of anything. Most marriages are not like Brittany Spears'. In fact very few are. They are thus irrelevant to the subject.
Gays can adopt. So what? We are discussing marriage, not whether fags can adopt.
Marriage is more than a contract under law. If it weren't then gays would be fine with domestic partnerships. Ask them if they would be OK with a new category of relationship called "domestic partnership" that created the same rights and benefits as marriage.
Again, the problem with "Domestic Partnerships" is the problem with a "colored Water Fountain". It's defacto segregation.
The colored water fountain still dispensed H20, but it didnt' look as nice and it was set off to the side to be something less.
Which is what makes it unacceptable.
And 50% don't. So what? Even the 50% figure is wrong. that is the number of divorces divided by the number of marriages. But of course people ahve been getting married for a long time. Plus more people are staying together.
Of course traditional marriage exists. People practice it every day.
great, then get the government out of marriage and keep it traditional.
fair enough?
What have you actively done to make that happen? Any particular politicians pushing for that?
50% of marriage result in divorce. thus, completely relevant no matter how much you want to bury your head in the sand. FACT: there no longer exist "traditional" marriage. deal with it.
you said women who can marry and can't have children can adopt...so can gays. thus, marriage is NOT about having children, under the law.
marriage is in fact nothing but a contract. go to any divorce attorney and ask him or her. ask women who can't have children if they would like their marriage to be called "nonproducing marriage".....get the point.
And 50% don't. So what? Even the 50% figure is wrong. that is the number of divorces divided by the number of marriages. But of course people ahve been getting married for a long time. Plus more people are staying together.
Of course traditional marriage exists. People practice it every day.
great, then get the government out of marriage and keep it traditional.
fair enough?
[
Your first statement is incomprehensible. You can always find bad examples of anything. Most marriages are not like Brittany Spears'. In fact very few are. They are thus irrelevant to the subject.
Gays can adopt. So what? We are discussing marriage, not whether fags can adopt.
Marriage is more than a contract under law. If it weren't then gays would be fine with domestic partnerships. Ask them if they would be OK with a new category of relationship called "domestic partnership" that created the same rights and benefits as marriage.
Again, the problem with "Domestic Partnerships" is the problem with a "colored Water Fountain". It's defacto segregation.
The colored water fountain still dispensed H20, but it didnt' look as nice and it was set off to the side to be something less.
Which is what makes it unacceptable.
He's right. The purpose of a marriage is to establish and protect children.
It is odd for someone to define marriage for other people.
It is also odd to be a hateful bigot prick.
But what can you do.
Marriage is/was defined by God, numbnuts.
Not by man.
Do what you can with that.
What if there is no God?
I've also noticed here that like a lot of homophobes, Warrior spends a lot of time thinking about gay sex, the mechanics of it and describing it in the most graphic ways.
It's kind of like if you met a vegetarian who just couldn't stop talking about steak, describing steak in the most lurid ways and talking about juices flowing out of it smothered in mushrooms and onions.
He's right. The purpose of a marriage is to establish and protect children.
Shows how little you know.
Marriage traditionally (bible times) was a trade - underage daughter for cow, chickens, land.
And a man could have as many wives as he could afford.
Women have only recently (last 200 years) had a say in marriage.
Exactly---
so who decides? The Supreme Court ? Are they the god of the progressives or is that only if they do what the progressives want ?
Ideally the states should obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.
Theres no reason to get the courts involved.
Unfortunately social conservatives and the partisan right see the issue as a political weapon, a means by which to energize the partisan base; what better way to accomplish this than a protracted court battle, allowing republican politicians to demonize the courts while on the stump.
so if utah allowed polygamy, then all other states should follow....
you don't understand the law well at all
Ideally the states should obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.
Theres no reason to get the courts involved.
Unfortunately social conservatives and the partisan right see the issue as a political weapon, a means by which to energize the partisan base; what better way to accomplish this than a protracted court battle, allowing republican politicians to demonize the courts while on the stump.
Last, same-sex couples have always had the equal protection right to marry as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, the issue concerns the states acknowledging that right.
I am not familiar with the 14th Amendment--
from google--
<Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.>
Is this the relevant part?
According to fyi I found on GA--no real change is expected for 20 years. I feel certain the wheels are in motion--not something with which I concern myself, but Atlanta has a significant gay population. According to some and my personal observations the influence of the metro area is growing. There may be rural areas where same sex couples wouldn't want to live. I know of a particularly conservative community in which a progressive mega church is located and a gay member said things were going well there. fwiw.
[
Your first statement is incomprehensible. You can always find bad examples of anything. Most marriages are not like Brittany Spears'. In fact very few are. They are thus irrelevant to the subject.
Gays can adopt. So what? We are discussing marriage, not whether fags can adopt.
Marriage is more than a contract under law. If it weren't then gays would be fine with domestic partnerships. Ask them if they would be OK with a new category of relationship called "domestic partnership" that created the same rights and benefits as marriage.
Again, the problem with "Domestic Partnerships" is the problem with a "colored Water Fountain". It's defacto segregation.
The colored water fountain still dispensed H20, but it didnt' look as nice and it was set off to the side to be something less.
Which is what makes it unacceptable.
Do you lie awake at night thinking of the stupidest thing you can write here during the day?
Again, the problem with "Domestic Partnerships" is the problem with a "colored Water Fountain". It's defacto segregation.
The colored water fountain still dispensed H20, but it didnt' look as nice and it was set off to the side to be something less.
Which is what makes it unacceptable.
Do you lie awake at night thinking of the stupidest thing you can write here during the day?
Do you always resort to personal insults when you can't refute the obvious?
If the only difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is a word, why not just let them use the word?
Because it offends your religious sensibilities? Too bad. Get over yourself.
Do you lie awake at night thinking of the stupidest thing you can write here during the day?
Do you always resort to personal insults when you can't refute the obvious?
If the only difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is a word, why not just let them use the word?
Because it offends your religious sensibilities? Too bad. Get over yourself.
I could say the same. Why do gays need "marriage" when "domestic partnerships" would answer all ther needs? Yet they dont. Therefore marriage is something more than a mere contractual relationship.
Point proven.
Do you always resort to personal insults when you can't refute the obvious?
If the only difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is a word, why not just let them use the word?
Because it offends your religious sensibilities? Too bad. Get over yourself.
I could say the same. Why do gays need "marriage" when "domestic partnerships" would answer all ther needs? Yet they dont. Therefore marriage is something more than a mere contractual relationship.
Point proven.
Then we should declare ALL unions "Domestic Partnerships" and stop calling it "Marriage".
But having "Marriage" for the straights and "Domestic Partnerships for the gays is like having water fountains that say "White" and "Colored".
I've known gays who've been in committed relationships for years.
I've known straights who've been married for less than a year before they realized it was a bad idea, and everyone around them gave it six months.
Which ones deserve the word if the word is important?
Ideally the states should obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.
Theres no reason to get the courts involved.
Unfortunately social conservatives and the partisan right see the issue as a political weapon, a means by which to energize the partisan base; what better way to accomplish this than a protracted court battle, allowing republican politicians to demonize the courts while on the stump.
so if utah allowed polygamy, then all other states should follow....
you don't understand the law well at all
Actually, you dont understand the law at all.
First, youre confusing polygamy with bigamy, where the former may or may not involve actual marriage involving more than two persons.
Second, current marriage law can accommodate neither, which is not the case with regard to same-sex couples accessing marriage law.
Third, laws banning bigamy are Constitutional, they have a rational basis, they have evidence in support of the restriction, and such laws are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion - which again is not the case with same-sex couples.
Last, same-sex couples have always had the equal protection right to marry as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, the issue concerns the states acknowledging that right.
I could say the same. Why do gays need "marriage" when "domestic partnerships" would answer all ther needs? Yet they dont. Therefore marriage is something more than a mere contractual relationship.
Point proven.
Then we should declare ALL unions "Domestic Partnerships" and stop calling it "Marriage".
But having "Marriage" for the straights and "Domestic Partnerships for the gays is like having water fountains that say "White" and "Colored".
I've known gays who've been in committed relationships for years.
I've known straights who've been married for less than a year before they realized it was a bad idea, and everyone around them gave it six months.
Which ones deserve the word if the word is important?
At least you agree that marriage is not simply another contract, which was the contention of one poster here.
