Four simple questions gay marriage supporters can't answer

[Qball]

So based on your answers to #1 and 2, it's safe to say a state not allowing same-sex marriage isn't actually discriminating on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not banned from marrying in the way allowed under the law, and heterosexuals are not allowed to marry in a way proscribed by the law.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

It's not a game. Words have meanings. It's hard to cry "discrimination" when you can't show how people are being demonstrably treated differently under the law.

They are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the partner they love

Your....Gays can always be straight, so they are not really discriminated against is laughable

So are polygamists and guys who want to marry their sisters.

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

Why do same sex marriage supporters have to answer questions 1 and 2?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No it's not. Since there are both same sex marriages and polygamous marriages in existence throughout humanity, now and in the past,

it's absurd to deny irrefutable evidence and claim that only one variation of marriage exists.

 

[rightwinger]

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

It's not a game. Words have meanings. It's hard to cry "discrimination" when you can't show how people are being demonstrably treated differently under the law.

They are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the partner they love

Your....Gays can always be straight, so they are not really discriminated against is laughable

So are polygamists and guys who want to marry their sisters.

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

 

[koshergrl]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1. No, because, as you stated, that state does not recognize same-sex marriage.
2. Yes, and probably have in the past.
3. Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign (and these are only Federal rights...each state would have more)
4. It's not a question of adding, it's a question of subtracting....getting rid of laws PREVENTING it.

So based on your answers to #1 and 2, it's safe to say a state not allowing same-sex marriage isn't actually discriminating on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not banned from marrying in the way allowed under the law, and heterosexuals are not allowed to marry in a way proscribed by the law.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

Its intellectual cowardice.

If intellectual (or any kind of) cowardice was terminal, there would be no progressives on the planet.

 

[koshergrl]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No it's not. Since there are both same sex marriages and polygamous marriages in existence throughout humanity, now and in the past,

it's absurd to deny irrefutable evidence and claim that only one variation of marriage exists.

What is absurd is the notion that the state can dictate to people of any religion what they can recognize as a sacrament, and what they can't.

Christians recognize marriage as a sacrament. They do not recognize the marriage between fags as a sacrament, and will not participate in the mockery of marriage that the celebrations of these unions comprise. And the state will never be able to force us to. And in this country, shame on ANYBODY who thinks they can use the state to punish people for abstaining from ceremonies they see as sacrilegious.

Of course, progressive statist dingbats have no shame, so the point is moot. This country needs to be culled of progressive whackos.

 

[koshergrl]

Go look for your keys clownshoes

LOL!

A Re-re-concession? Seriously?

OK... Your Re-re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, this is about as close to 'literal ownership' of another human being as it gets, on a message board.)

Youre the perfect example of a schizophrenic.

Would i be off base to assume youre a virgin, too?

Nah. My hunches are rarely wrong.

Just because a man hasn't taken it up the ass doesn't mean he's a virgin.

 

[rightwinger]

Go look for your keys clownshoes

LOL!

A Re-re-concession? Seriously?

OK... Your Re-re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, this is about as close to 'literal ownership' of another human being as it gets, on a message board.)

Youre the perfect example of a schizophrenic.

Would i be off base to assume youre a virgin, too?

Nah. My hunches are rarely wrong.

Just because a man hasn't taken it up the ass doesn't mean he's a virgin.

Woman either

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No it's not. Since there are both same sex marriages and polygamous marriages in existence throughout humanity, now and in the past,

it's absurd to deny irrefutable evidence and claim that only one variation of marriage exists.

What is absurd is the notion that the state can dictate to people of any religion what they can recognize as a sacrament, and what they can't.

Christians recognize marriage as a sacrament. They do not recognize the marriage between fags as a sacrament, and will not participate in the mockery of marriage that the celebrations of these unions comprise. And the state will never be able to force us to. And in this country, shame on ANYBODY who thinks they can use the state to punish people for abstaining from ceremonies they see as sacrilegious.

Of course, progressive statist dingbats have no shame, so the point is moot. This country needs to be culled of progressive whackos.

You're wrong. For example, the Presbyterian Church now includes same sex marriage in its definition of marriage and their pastors may now officiate over same sex marriages in states where it's legal.

 

[Syriusly]

[my questions]

Here is my question to you:
My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- why shouldn't a same gender couple have the exact same right to marry each other as my wife and I had?

Because their government ultimately has no compelling reason to recognize them as they do yours. I made a thread a few years ago explaining this, but legal marriage basically serves two functions: 1) to create a social safety net for those at an economic disadvantage (women, children), and 2) to facilitate the phenomena of childbirth.

Economically, women are more vulnerable than men. What is the key difference between women and men (that the government cares about)? They can and likely will have children. Women take months off of work to have children. Women tend to come out of the workplace to raise children. Men...tend not to.

Men work and earn more than women, and thus, women and their children are reliant on them for sustenance (not as much now, but traditionally, this has been the case). The "rights and benefits" tied to marriage exist for this reason. If a man lost his job, got sick and died, left his family, got sent to war and died, was disabled and could no longer work...the government would provide benefits for his family.

Children are not a natural consequence of same-sex unions. They can obtain kids, but that relationship is categorically barren. So thus, bestowing costly benefits and incentives to these couples is not a necessary investment.

Well that is a great rationalization for discrimination.

Lets talk about each one separately

1) Create a social safety net for those at an economic disadvantage
Marriage laws do not care about that. Marriage laws do not care whether or not the woman is a millionaire and the man is an accountant. At one time, women were considered less than equal in marriage- but legally that changed. What marriage laws do is create a partnership- a presumed life long partnership between two people where they commit to care for each other financially. This creates a 'social safety net' for both of the spouses- and this is a benefit to the state, as the state is less likely to be faced with supporting an indigent single person, if there two potential wage earners in a partnership.

2) 'Facilitate the phenomena of Childbirth'- again this is simply not true. The State of Wisconsin for example allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. The State does not care whether or not a couple can have, desires to have, or ever has any children- naturally, through artificial conception, or through adoption. Straight couples have children regardless of whether they are married or not. Couples get married even if they are infertile. And gay people do have children.

Again- your statement that 'that relationship is categorically barren' is both false- and offensive to those who cannot conceive children themselves.

A lesbian couple can have children in the exact same manner as any straight couple in which the husband is infertile. A gay couple can have a child in the exact same fashion as a couple where the wife is unable to bare a child, and uses surrogacy. And all gay couples can adopt children in exactly the same manner that straight couples can adopt children.

You seem to be implying that couples- straight or gay- who cannot conceive through intercourse are less valuable to the state than those who can. I would argue that those who adopt are instead even more valuable to the state and should be more encouraged to marry.

Back to my original question:
My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- why shouldn't a same gender couple have the exact same right to marry each other as my wife and I had?

My wife and I have 1 child. A gay couple I know have 2 children. In both cases, we are committed couples who have been together for over 20 years.

Why do you think that the children of the gay couple should not have married parents but that my child does deserve married parents?

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow American citizens residing in the states access to state laws, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private citizens or private organizations such as churches, where churches remain at liberty to deny religious marriage to same-sex couples.

What you and others on the social right need to give up is your unwarranted hate toward gay Americans, and give up seeking to disadvantage them in matters of public law and policy.

No, marriage is a sacrament.

And no number of bad laws will ever force Christians to view it as something different. The state doesn't dictate what a sacrament is. Sowwy.

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Matrimony

Your ignorance, hate, and stupidity, representative of most on the social right, clearly demonstrates why the Constitution and its case law are needed as much today as any time during our Nation's history.

. It's just superior understanding on my part. T.

I have suffered through dozens- perhaps hundreds of your posts.

I have yet to see any demonstrating of 'superior understanding' from you regarding anything.

Just lots of hate, lots of partisan bias.

 

[Syriusly]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1. Yes (no one asks to see you consumate things. 'Marriages of convenience' used to be very popular when homosexuality was illegal.)

2. Yes (see above)

3. Hospital visitation right.

4. Marriage is a civil contract. Wouldn't say getting married is a right. It's just a legal contract as far as the government is concerned.

14th Amendment. If the government can define what a marriage is (insofar as it, the government is concerned, and what rights and benefits it'll grant because you get married) then it must make marriage available to everyone. Not just men-women.

And the government must make marriage available to everyone...not just men and women? Who else is there? Cats and dogs.

See- even though I knew where you were going with this thread, I was willing to accept that you had a legitimate argument to be made somewhere- and then you went with the 'cats and dogs'.

Tell me- can you tell the difference between humans- and dogs?

If you are unable to tell why we allow two adult humans to marry- and why we will not be allowing dogs and cats to marry each other- then you are too far down the rabbit hole to have a discussion with.

[blinks]

I was asking an honest question. He said the government should make marriage available to everyone, not just men and women. But...it is available to everyone.

And I will ask again- are you unable to tell the difference between humans(everyone) and dogs?

You:
And the government must make marriage available to everyone...not just men and women? Who else is there? Cats and dogs.[/QUOTE]

See- even though I knew where you were going with this thread, I was willing to accept that you had a legitimate argument to be made somewhere- and then you went with the 'cats and dogs'.

Tell me- can you tell the difference between humans- and dogs?

If you are unable to tell why we allow two adult humans to marry- and why we will not be allowing dogs and cats to marry each other- then you are too far down the rabbit hole to have a discussion with

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a game. Words have meanings. It's hard to cry "discrimination" when you can't show how people are being demonstrably treated differently under the law.

They are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the partner they love

Your....Gays can always be straight, so they are not really discriminated against is laughable

So are polygamists and guys who want to marry their sisters.

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

The arguments in support of so-called "gay marriage" can all be used to support polygamy and incestuous marriages. The "specific" reason for outlawing the later is the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of facilitating reproduction.

 

[Syriusly]

3- one? Estate tax protection. Visitation rights. Community property protections.

There is no such thing as "estate tax protection" or "community property protections". Adding the word "protections" to the end of these terms don't make them protections. "Visitation rights" are not "rights" in the constitutional sense nor are they exclusive to married couples.
.

Then you tell me what the hell you are talking about when you are talking about 'protections'?
Do you think that married couples get any protections? I do.

Among the 'benefits' of marriage are:

• Estate Tax Protection- this was the basis of the DOMA/Windsor lawsuit- Edith Windsor was legally married to her partner of over 30 years, but because Federal law did not recognize her marriage to a woman, the IRS required her to pay estate taxes on her interitance of their community property. If Edith Windsor had been married to a man, their joint estate would have been automatically protected- smells like protection, sounds like protection. You want to deny gay couples the same protection from estate taxes that married couples like my wife or I will be able to take advantage of.
  
• Visitation Rights are automatic to married couples. This is a particularly important issue for gay couples, because there have been many instances where the healthy partner of the gay couple has been denied visitation by the sick partner's next legal kin- parents or siblings. My wife and I do not have to make any special provisions so she can visit me in the hospital- but you think that gay couples should have to go through additional legal hoops.
• Community property protection- a straight couple can choose whether or not to be legally protected by community property protections of marriage law- if they want to forgo marriage, they can usually forgo community property- I have a relative doing just that. However- they can choose to get married- you want to deny a gay couple that same option of protection.

 

[Syriusly]

They are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the partner they love

Your....Gays can always be straight, so they are not really discriminated against is laughable

So are polygamists and guys who want to marry their sisters.

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

The arguments in support of so-called "gay marriage" can all be used to support polygamy and incestuous marriages. The "specific" reason for outlawing the later is the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of facilitating reproduction.

.The arguments in support of so-called 'gay marriage' could also be used to support mixed race marriages. The opponents of mixed race marriages even warned that allowing mixed race marriages might result in polygamy and incest.

That of course is still not an argument why gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

How does 'outlawing' gay marriage facilitate reproduction? Babies get born with or without marriage. Homosexual couples have children.

Preventing gay marriage just ensures that their children will not have married parents.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Screw your 4 questions. Here's one simple question. Why can't you mind your own fucking business?

Because laws we pass are my business as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. Somehow I doubt you'd ask this if I said I supported SSM.

It's not your business to seek to deny gay Americans their civil rights in violation of current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[Syriusly]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1. No, because, as you stated, that state does not recognize same-sex marriage.
2. Yes, and probably have in the past.
3. Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign (and these are only Federal rights...each state would have more)
4. It's not a question of adding, it's a question of subtracting....getting rid of laws PREVENTING it.

So based on your answers to #1 and 2, it's safe to say a state not allowing same-sex marriage isn't actually discriminating on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not banned from marrying in the way allowed under the law, and heterosexuals are not allowed to marry in a way proscribed by the law.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

It's not a game. Words have meanings. It's hard to cry "discrimination" when you can't show how people are being demonstrably treated differently under the law.

But as the courts have been agreeing- couples have been demonstrating how they were treated differently under the law.

A same gender couple is treated differently under the law than an opposite gender couple- which is why they have been succeeding in arguing that their 14th Amendment rights of due process and equal protections have been violated.

 

[Syriusly]

1. No, because, as you stated, that state does not recognize same-sex marriage.
2. Yes, and probably have in the past.
3. Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign (and these are only Federal rights...each state would have more)
4. It's not a question of adding, it's a question of subtracting....getting rid of laws PREVENTING it.

So based on your answers to #1 and 2, it's safe to say a state not allowing same-sex marriage isn't actually discriminating on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not banned from marrying in the way allowed under the law, and heterosexuals are not allowed to marry in a way proscribed by the law.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

It's not a game. Words have meanings. It's hard to cry "discrimination" when you can't show how people are being demonstrably treated differently under the law.

They are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the partner they love

Your....Gays can always be straight, so they are not really discriminated against is laughable

You can repeat that 10,000 times, but that will never make it true. Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Any other claims are sheer nonsense.

Marriage in much of the world is 1 man and several women. Even in the Bible, Solomon had multiple wives.

Is that all 'nonsense' too?

 

[Syriusly]

1. No, because, as you stated, that state does not recognize same-sex marriage.
2. Yes, and probably have in the past.
3. Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign (and these are only Federal rights...each state would have more)
4. It's not a question of adding, it's a question of subtracting....getting rid of laws PREVENTING it.

So based on your answers to #1 and 2, it's safe to say a state not allowing same-sex marriage isn't actually discriminating on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not banned from marrying in the way allowed under the law, and heterosexuals are not allowed to marry in a way proscribed by the law.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

It's not a game. Words have meanings. It's hard to cry "discrimination" when you can't show how people are being demonstrably treated differently under the law.

They are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the partner they love

Your....Gays can always be straight, so they are not really discriminated against is laughable

So are polygamists and guys who want to marry their sisters.

And each of those cases are distinct from a same gender couple that want to marry, and distinct from an opposite gender couple that want to marry.

This is why that argument has failed in every court case.

This is what it comes down to:
a) Marriage is a right- well established by multiple court rulings.
b) States can deny rights- such as denying a felon the right to own a gun- but only if the State can demonstrate a compelling state interest in denying someone a right
c) States have not been able to provide a compelling State interest in denying gay couples marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Screw your 4 questions. Here's one simple question. Why can't you mind your own fucking business?

FIVE!

We now have Five of our in-house fascists who've come to profess their 'feelings' that Sexual deviancy should stand superior to the means of Christians exercise their rights.

Keys and Brt New Conservative dictionary:

Fascist: Anyone the Conservative disagrees with