If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[jc456]

How? Common.....if there were no laws against discrimination, if government just took a back seat to most interactions between citizens what would we have? We would have social Darwinism, and minorities would be screwed.

I do not share your lack of faith in humanity.

Will there be discrimination? Sure. Will good people step up? We always do.

Past racial discrimination was perpetuated from a time when white people believed that the white race was superior. We are way past that now. Darwinism has killed off the bigots (for the most part). You are seeing the same thing with gays.

I have faith in people. They just need leadership.

leadership from whom? isn't that this entire thread? I must laugh at that after all I've read from you. why does one need a leader if one has liberty?

 

[Silhouette]

marriage is what marriage is. male female. no matter how you wish to paint that picture. marriage is an institution been for thousands of years. gay love is gay love. allow the gays to invest time into what to call their unions. It isn't marriage. They have no ties at all to marriage. Allow them to live together and to hitch however they choose and the state agree with that union for the goodies. I fking don't care. It is not marriage. BTW, the whole try to cram husband and wife into a gay event is discrimination to a woman or a man depending on the gay couple sex. sad. Insulting and wrong.

Totally agree. And so do gays. The only reason they wanted marriage is to gain the brass ring denied them in civil unions: rights to adopt vulnerable orphans and take them into their homes behind closed doors: (no pictures of behind closed doors but here's what they do 'in pride' in front of kids in public...)

 

[jc456]

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

Like I said, if you really think, "Gosh, married people have so many advantages over single people 'cause of joint income tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits", you're a moron, and/or you are seriously ignorant about what marriage ACTUALLY is and what it's for. I've been saying this pretty much from the beginning of homosexuals saying, "We have to have legal marital sanction so that we're getting in on the goodies!"

Dr. Sowell wrote this back in 2005, but leaving aside the dated current event references, the underlying principles are still correct:

Gay Marriage 'Rights' Are Nonsensical | Human Events

Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

He wrote this in 2006:

Thomas Sowell - Gay "marriage"

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

This is the standpoint with which I was agreeing earlier: from a legal standpoint, marriage is not an expansion of rights, a smorgasbord of extra goodies to which only married people are entitled; it is a restriction, legally speaking, and all those "benefits" people keep yammering on about are really just a legal recognition of that.

You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.

What in the holy fuck are you babbling about, or trying to get at? "Only marry in a church"? What the hell does that mean, or have to do with anything?

And the only "goody" heterosexuals have that homosexuals don't is the general opinion that our relationships are normal. Personally, I don't give a shit.

The goodies are what you straight people decided went along with civil marriage. Hundreds of rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with civil marriage and gays have equal access to them, so you're right, we get the goodies too. Oh, and the general opinion nowadays is that our relationships are normal. Welcome to the 21st Century.

along with the goodies was the loss of rights. you should at least know the whole position if you wish to discuss. It was posted in this thread already. personal individuality is lost.

 

[jc456]

Your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with operating a business. Doesn't the bible say youre to follow the laws? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag said so.

I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?

The Bible does command Christians to obey laws. That's why they are complaining. You want to force upon them laws that remove their right to operate their business according to their conscience.

It's stupid and bullshit, but it's liberty. And they deserve it, just like you.

Let liberty come first. It is way more effective that government force.

Do you believe that we non-bigots will take care of you? Do you have faith in people generally being good?

Public Accommodation laws are laws. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have to abide by them. We've been down this road before.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)

Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[...]

Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.

Yes. What I am saying is get rid of the laws.

Let liberty rule and let bigots reveal themselves so we can boycott the fuck out of them while simultaneously taking unnecessary power away from government, which is the instrument of the ruling class.

the problem you have with your thought is that a majority will rule. always will. At some point the bigots again would define the minority. no matter how genuine you think your liberty is, that is human nature. if it wasn't we wouldn't be having the discussion.

 

[jc456]

Who is treating marriage as a privilege besides the bigots who-first wanted to limit it to two people of the same race, and more recently , to a man and a woman? What exactly is a privilege vs a right? .Lets think about that.

Privileges are bestowed by government. Rights exist solely by nature of the individual's existence (God given for the religious).

Privileges require application and permission. Rights already exist.

marriage to government is about property.

It's a bit more than that.

1. It also gives rights to access in cases of Hospitalization
2. It gives one partner the right to make medical decisions should the other partner be unable to decide on their own

and for some reason

3. Restricts closely related individual from entering the contract. However, it is not clear how this would apply, or if it is even enforceable with same sex couples.

well your option 1 and 2 can be easily resolved using the court to give permission in a contract to include someone in your health choices.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

marriage is what marriage is. male female. no matter how you wish to paint that picture. marriage is an institution been for thousands of years. gay love is gay love. allow the gays to invest time into what to call their unions. It isn't marriage. They have no ties at all to marriage. Allow them to live together and to hitch however they choose and the state agree with that union for the goodies. I fking don't care. It is not marriage. BTW, the whole try to cram husband and wife into a gay event is discrimination to a woman or a man depending on the gay couple sex. sad. Insulting and wrong.

So, marriage is an agreement between two people to stay together, share resources, possibly rear children, etc.?

and...

A Civil Union is an agreement between two people to stay together, share resources, possibly rear children, etc.?

The difference only being whether or not the plumbing is diverse?

How is treating the two situations differently anything but bigotry and discrimination?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I understand, and I agree, it's wrong to judge someone based on how they live, but we all do it. However, in my example, in referring to the Colorado bakery, there wasn't any evidence that the person was judging the gay couple, they were simply stating that they didn't want to participate in the ceremony by lending their creative talents to the occasion. There was no hate there, but you can be sure there are many on the left who made sure that was the narrative.

As I have said a number of times, it matters little what the motivation was- what thought and emotions are behind the behavior. The effects are the same. I will say to my dying day that backing a cake is not "participating in their ceremony" and if there is a hell I doubt that their God would send them to it over a fucking cake.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No she is not right. That is just over the top batshit insane.! How can you sat=y that she may be right. Once again, I am lulled into thinking that you are a reasonable person, only to be disappointed and blindsided by this sort or inane equine excrement

Well, wait a minute. You're jumping the gun. Take time to internalize all that I say before you judge it. Please.

I said she may be right, that power brokers are using gay marriage as a tool to control religious organizations. I also said that religious people and organizations (A/K/A Jesus Nazis) are trying to control gays. That happens all the time. People in power use others and their issues to assert power.

But, read the rest.

Does that not make more sense?

Yes perhaps. But when you said that she may be right you were responding to this insane horseshit:
'

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.
It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

I don't think that my reaction was unreasonable. There may be some truth to what you say, although I am not sure to what extent, but regardless, it in no way justifies validating that kind of insanity

Horseshit is a fair description for parts of it, but other parts were not necessarily wrong, regardless of their bovinian excremental nature.

Statists want to control religion. I am far from religious, or I call myself a Norse Pagan, mainly as a joke. I only defend religious rights because liberty comes first. That includes the right of others to believe in, and worship, the tooth fairy. Who am I to deny them?

As an unabashed "statist" I do not want to control religion as long as the practitioners of religion do so in the traditional sense of religious freed, and do not use it to control, demean , and marginalize others

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let me ask you this, so, now we are at the point where bakers (or any business) has to concede their personal values to accommodate the wishes of someone else. How far of a stretch is it to envision that, if a business refuses to buy supplies from a company, because that company supports things that go against their values.

I've got news for you . You are talking about an entirely different matter. It is a false equivalency logical fallacy. It is one thing to refuse to serve someone who comes into your business. It is quite another thing to boycott a business. That happens all of the time and it is legal. It is idiotic to think that you can be told who to patronize.

What I mean is, let's say the Colorado baker needs to buy 1000lbs of flour. A flour mill comes to him and says they would like to sell him flour but the baker, having read a profile of the flour company, knew that the owners were gay, and used some of their proceeds to support gay rights, so the baker says that he is sorry but he can't purchase flour from them because his religion doesn't allow him to knowingly conduct business with people who's lifestyle goes against his religious values.

Now, do the owners of the flour company have a case against the baker, because they feel he is not purchasing from them based on their lifestyle?

Maybe I'm wrong, but, seems like that scenario would fall right in line with what is going on with this subject.

Or are you saying that a baker cannot refuse to do business with a patron of his store, but can refuse to do business with a supplier based on the same criteria? I don't know, seems pretty sketchy to me. I just feel if you concede to the gay couple, eventually, the way things ate going, the baker will eventually also have to concede to the supplier....and then he has lost control of his business.

I believe that we have been all through this already.....yes that is what I'm saying

 

[Pop23]

Who is treating marriage as a privilege besides the bigots who-first wanted to limit it to two people of the same race, and more recently , to a man and a woman? What exactly is a privilege vs a right? .Lets think about that.

Privileges are bestowed by government. Rights exist solely by nature of the individual's existence (God given for the religious).

Privileges require application and permission. Rights already exist.

marriage to government is about property.

It's a bit more than that.

1. It also gives rights to access in cases of Hospitalization
2. It gives one partner the right to make medical decisions should the other partner be unable to decide on their own

and for some reason

3. Restricts closely related individual from entering the contract. However, it is not clear how this would apply, or if it is even enforceable with same sex couples.

well your option 1 and 2 can be easily resolved using the court to give permission in a contract to include someone in your health choices.

Agreed, just stating the fact, and yes, this was easily accomplished without broadly redefining a legal entity.

 

[Silhouette]

So, marriage is an agreement between two people to stay together, share resources, possibly rear children, etc.?

and...A Civil Union is an agreement between two people to stay together, share resources, possibly rear children, etc.?

The difference only being whether or not the plumbing is diverse? How is treating the two situations differently anything but bigotry and discrimination?

Because civil unions weren't necessarily eligible for adopting vulnerable orphans into their lifestyle. In Dumont v Lyons Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance? however, they're driving the Obergefell shoehorn right into where we knew this whole marriage bullshit was all about from day 1: getting at kiddies to draw into their lifestyles behind closed doors. Just think about what they do "in pride" in public parades where they hope and invite children to watch and you will shudder to imagine what they want to do in front of kids behind closed doors once they get "legal rights" to keep them there...

Our nation's most vulnerable children forced into these homes by a legal shoehorn..

 

[dblack]

I'm gratified that vast majority of those answering the poll agreed: if gays shouldn't be protected from discrimination, neither should Christians. Those who want it both ways - who want religion to be a protected class, but not sexual orientation - have abandon equal rights as a principle of government.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

Absolutely, I'm serious. And correct. License is the name of the game. Everyone should know what License means in a proper man-to-man, and therefore government-to-man relationship.

Now. Equalty. Sure, I could tell you that the government shouldn't be involved in our personal lives and personal choices. And that's correct, too. But that discussion is worn out, isn't it? It's a given. And it's a little more complex than that, anyway, if I were to expand on my first couple of sentences here. We don't have to talk about that if you don't wanna.

Getting back to my previous posting, let's do it this way.

Equality in Legal justice. Now there's a couple of fine words, isn't it? How often do you hear those spoken in that manner? Not very often, right? Legal justice. What's that mean to you? A thinking man might wonder if what is Legal is often/ever Lawful. Assuming he understood the difference.

Given that rights do not come as groups, but instead come as Individuals, and given that each Individual possesses the Individual right of freedom of association, and given that, in your words, same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners (the deeply held views test?). What would you say are the particular benefits that you can't have without asking the federal government to oversee you?

You're loosing me here Pal. You have taken a simple matter of equality and turned in into massive ball a gobity gook. It does not matter what the benefits of legal marriage are or where they come from. The simple fact is that -like it or not- government sanctions marriage and provides a range of benefits, and if hetro couples can enjoy those benefits, so must gay couples be able to.

 

[Seawytch]

Your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with operating a business. Doesn't the bible say youre to follow the laws? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag said so.

I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?

The Bible does command Christians to obey laws. That's why they are complaining. You want to force upon them laws that remove their right to operate their business according to their conscience.

It's stupid and bullshit, but it's liberty. And they deserve it, just like you.

Let liberty come first. It is way more effective that government force.

Do you believe that we non-bigots will take care of you? Do you have faith in people generally being good?

Public Accommodation laws are laws. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have to abide by them. We've been down this road before.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)

Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[...]

Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.

Bastardizing religion will often lead to these decisions. I object to the use of religion, when it's use is stupidly applied as well.

Sorry, but those were their sincerely held religious beliefs. They believed the Bible instructed them not to serve blacks just as deeply as today’s bigots believe it does for gays. (But not formerly divorced couples)

 

[Pop23]

Your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with operating a business. Doesn't the bible say youre to follow the laws? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag said so.

I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?

The Bible does command Christians to obey laws. That's why they are complaining. You want to force upon them laws that remove their right to operate their business according to their conscience.

It's stupid and bullshit, but it's liberty. And they deserve it, just like you.

Let liberty come first. It is way more effective that government force.

Do you believe that we non-bigots will take care of you? Do you have faith in people generally being good?

Public Accommodation laws are laws. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have to abide by them. We've been down this road before.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)

Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[...]

Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.

Bastardizing religion will often lead to these decisions. I object to the use of religion, when it's use is stupidly applied as well.

Sorry, but those were their sincerely held religious beliefs. They believed the Bible instructed them not to serve blacks just as deeply as today’s bigots believe it does for gays. (But not formerly divorced couples)

And in that case the courts saw through that charade.

 

[Seawytch]

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

Like I said, if you really think, "Gosh, married people have so many advantages over single people 'cause of joint income tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits", you're a moron, and/or you are seriously ignorant about what marriage ACTUALLY is and what it's for. I've been saying this pretty much from the beginning of homosexuals saying, "We have to have legal marital sanction so that we're getting in on the goodies!"

Dr. Sowell wrote this back in 2005, but leaving aside the dated current event references, the underlying principles are still correct:

Gay Marriage 'Rights' Are Nonsensical | Human Events

Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

He wrote this in 2006:

Thomas Sowell - Gay "marriage"

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

This is the standpoint with which I was agreeing earlier: from a legal standpoint, marriage is not an expansion of rights, a smorgasbord of extra goodies to which only married people are entitled; it is a restriction, legally speaking, and all those "benefits" people keep yammering on about are really just a legal recognition of that.

You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.

still haven't seen your definition of marriage. where is it?

A union forming a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

 

[Seawytch]

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.

It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

You may be correct, but that's a two-way street.

It has always been about controlling other people.

One side wanted to control the relationships of others, while the other side wanted to control the religious beliefs of the other side. Gays were just caught up in it, and used as political pawns, when they simply wanted the same life as straight people.

The correct solution was to disarm BOTH sides and declare marriage a contractual arrangement that does not, and should not require any type of state permission (license).

That would have fix all the problems.

Court can dissolve partnerships. A marriage is no different.

Courts already handle child-custody cases, so that nothing new either.

A contract does not require gender specifics. Nor is it limited to just two parties (polygamy--oh, no!!!). Nor does it exclude siblings or other close family members (incest -- oh, no!!!). It doesn't require the people to love each other or to be able to produce retarded spawn.

People with the legal capacity to enter into contracts have the legal capacity to marry. That eliminates children, dogs, trees, all other bullshit boogy-man concerns about what marriage will become.

When everyone started treating marriage as a privilege bestowed on us by the state, we lost our way. I believe it started with racism. One had to get permission from the state to be a "race traitor" and marry someone of a different race.

So, while I am glad the SCOTUS gave rights to gay couples, I think they missed an opportunity, but they may not have had the guts to live with the consequences. I see that in a lot of SCOTUS opinions.

marriage is what marriage is. male female. no matter how you wish to paint that picture. marriage is an institution been for thousands of years. gay love is gay love. allow the gays to invest time into what to call their unions. It isn't marriage. They have no ties at all to marriage. Allow them to live together and to hitch however they choose and the state agree with that union for the goodies. I fking don't care. It is not marriage. BTW, the whole try to cram husband and wife into a gay event is discrimination to a woman or a man depending on the gay couple sex. sad. Insulting and wrong.

No. Gays have the same right to civil marriage that straight couples do. Deal with it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is quite a rant brother. You're kind of all over the map. Peer review, marriage discrimination, freedom of association. Get organized.

It's hardly a rant. To your credit, however, yes, I was all over the map. Somebody had to be the one to put things into proper perspective and relevant scope.

Here's the funny thing about threads like this. Particularly this thread. You could win the whole discussion and everyone would have to leave the thread and say, okay, that's it, PP won the thread. lol.

Your pride gets in the way, however. It always does. I come here and I give you the all of the answers in broad daylight, or at least the few you need, because the answer at the end of the day is always accomplished from a perspective of Individual liberty-Responsibility, and you're gonna sit there and call it a rant? Show some goddam respect. lol. It's to your benefit that people generally don't understand it. And it's also to your benefit to discuss such things from that perspective. That's how winning is done.

You gave me all the answers??

 

[Seawytch]

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

Like I said, if you really think, "Gosh, married people have so many advantages over single people 'cause of joint income tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits", you're a moron, and/or you are seriously ignorant about what marriage ACTUALLY is and what it's for. I've been saying this pretty much from the beginning of homosexuals saying, "We have to have legal marital sanction so that we're getting in on the goodies!"

Dr. Sowell wrote this back in 2005, but leaving aside the dated current event references, the underlying principles are still correct:

Gay Marriage 'Rights' Are Nonsensical | Human Events

Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

He wrote this in 2006:

Thomas Sowell - Gay "marriage"

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

This is the standpoint with which I was agreeing earlier: from a legal standpoint, marriage is not an expansion of rights, a smorgasbord of extra goodies to which only married people are entitled; it is a restriction, legally speaking, and all those "benefits" people keep yammering on about are really just a legal recognition of that.

You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.

What in the holy fuck are you babbling about, or trying to get at? "Only marry in a church"? What the hell does that mean, or have to do with anything?

And the only "goody" heterosexuals have that homosexuals don't is the general opinion that our relationships are normal. Personally, I don't give a shit.

The goodies are what you straight people decided went along with civil marriage. Hundreds of rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with civil marriage and gays have equal access to them, so you're right, we get the goodies too. Oh, and the general opinion nowadays is that our relationships are normal. Welcome to the 21st Century.

along with the goodies was the loss of rights. you should at least know the whole position if you wish to discuss. It was posted in this thread already. personal individuality is lost.

I haven’t lost any rights by legally marrying my wife. I gained many. Thank you Windsor and Obergefell.

 

[Pop23]

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

Like I said, if you really think, "Gosh, married people have so many advantages over single people 'cause of joint income tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits", you're a moron, and/or you are seriously ignorant about what marriage ACTUALLY is and what it's for. I've been saying this pretty much from the beginning of homosexuals saying, "We have to have legal marital sanction so that we're getting in on the goodies!"

Dr. Sowell wrote this back in 2005, but leaving aside the dated current event references, the underlying principles are still correct:

Gay Marriage 'Rights' Are Nonsensical | Human Events

Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

He wrote this in 2006:

Thomas Sowell - Gay "marriage"

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

This is the standpoint with which I was agreeing earlier: from a legal standpoint, marriage is not an expansion of rights, a smorgasbord of extra goodies to which only married people are entitled; it is a restriction, legally speaking, and all those "benefits" people keep yammering on about are really just a legal recognition of that.

You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.

still haven't seen your definition of marriage. where is it?

A union forming a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Agreed, however some will not understand that "conjugal" only means behaving as a Married couple. It does not have a sexual meaning.