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.
Maybe - Maybe not. That will be up to them to argue and make their case.
I gave you the opportunity, under our laws and legal system, to present a compelling government interest why law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a different sex relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry while law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a same sex relationship are not allowed to Civilly Marry.
You dodged into the old standby:
1. They don't produce children - well, the ability to produce children is not a disqualifying factor for different sex couples, so therefore it is not a legal disqualification for same-sex couples.
2. Then you say "well people don't like it". Well in the early 2000's there were many, many referendum's on the ballot to deny same-sex couples Civil Marriage. A decade later same-sex Civil Marriage has begun winning at the ballot box (with four victories in 2012) and polls showing consistently that sociaty is changing.
Because "A" currently receives special privileges and there is no logical or common sense reasoning to deny "B" the same privileges, trying to scare people with the idea that "C" and "D" might eventually have the same privileges is not a legal justification.
"C" and "D" will have to make their own cases.
>>>>
you are trying to make a simple issue complicated. Its not complicated. It comes down to basic beliefs of what is right and what is wrong for a society.
If you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition then you are OK with homosexual marriage
If you believe that homosexuality is an aberration or the human condition then you are opposed to homosexual marriage.
Most who are opposed to homosexual marriage are not opposed to a gay union of some sort that gives a gay couple inheritence rights and tax breaks, but their union is not a marriage. A marriage has been established as a union of one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture and every religion.
Attempting to compare interracial or interfaith marriage to homosexual marriage is ignoring that the first two involve a man and a woman.
It is very simple.
That one believes homosexuality is an aberration of the human condition is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; one may not deny same-sex couples their right of equal access to the law motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.
And the notion of a gay union of some sort is just as un-Constitutional, where a policy of separate but equal was long ago rejected by the Supreme Court.
you are trying to make a simple issue complicated. Its not complicated. It comes down to basic beliefs of what is right and what is wrong for a society.
If you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition then you are OK with homosexual marriage
If you believe that homosexuality is an aberration or the human condition then you are opposed to homosexual marriage.
Most who are opposed to homosexual marriage are not opposed to a gay union of some sort that gives a gay couple inheritence rights and tax breaks, but their union is not a marriage. A marriage has been established as a union of one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture and every religion.
Attempting to compare interracial or interfaith marriage to homosexual marriage is ignoring that the first two involve a man and a woman.
Your problem is that you cannot force your belief that homosexual marriage is wrong without proving that you, or others are harmed in some way.
Otherwise, the government has no business in determining whose relationship is worthy of marriage
a majority of the people of the world believe that homosexual marriage harms society. Even the voters of the liberal state of california voted it down twice. No one has to prove what they believe.
But if thats your argument--PROVE to me that gay marriage would be good for society. Don't state your opinion-prove it.
you are trying to make a simple issue complicated. Its not complicated. It comes down to basic beliefs of what is right and what is wrong for a society.
If you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition then you are OK with homosexual marriage
If you believe that homosexuality is an aberration or the human condition then you are opposed to homosexual marriage.
Most who are opposed to homosexual marriage are not opposed to a gay union of some sort that gives a gay couple inheritence rights and tax breaks, but their union is not a marriage. A marriage has been established as a union of one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture and every religion.
Attempting to compare interracial or interfaith marriage to homosexual marriage is ignoring that the first two involve a man and a woman.
Your problem is that you cannot force your belief that homosexual marriage is wrong without proving that you, or others are harmed in some way.
Otherwise, the government has no business in determining whose relationship is worthy of marriage
a majority of the people of the world believe that homosexual marriage harms society. Even the voters of the liberal state of california voted it down twice. No one has to prove what they believe.
But if thats your argument--PROVE to me that gay marriage would be good for society. Don't state your opinion-prove it.
you are trying to make a simple issue complicated. Its not complicated. It comes down to basic beliefs of what is right and what is wrong for a society.
If you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition then you are OK with homosexual marriage
If you believe that homosexuality is an aberration or the human condition then you are opposed to homosexual marriage.
Most who are opposed to homosexual marriage are not opposed to a gay union of some sort that gives a gay couple inheritence rights and tax breaks, but their union is not a marriage. A marriage has been established as a union of one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture and every religion.
Attempting to compare interracial or interfaith marriage to homosexual marriage is ignoring that the first two involve a man and a woman.
Your problem is that you cannot force your belief that homosexual marriage is wrong without proving that you, or others are harmed in some way.
Otherwise, the government has no business in determining whose relationship is worthy of marriage
a majority of the people of the world believe that homosexual marriage harms society. Even the voters of the liberal state of california voted it down twice. No one has to prove what they believe.
But if thats your argument--PROVE to me that gay marriage would be good for society. Don't state your opinion-prove it.
Your problem is that you cannot force your belief that homosexual marriage is wrong without proving that you, or others are harmed in some way.
Otherwise, the government has no business in determining whose relationship is worthy of marriage
a majority of the people of the world believe that homosexual marriage harms society. Even the voters of the liberal state of california voted it down twice. No one has to prove what they believe.
But if thats your argument--PROVE to me that gay marriage would be good for society. Don't state your opinion-prove it.
Other than the fact that you hate fags, you have yet to identify any harm to society
This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.
jake, I told you what you needed to do if you want me to read your posts. Tell the truth about who and what you are. Do that or remain on ignore.
Your problem is that you cannot force your belief that homosexual marriage is wrong without proving that you, or others are harmed in some way.
Otherwise, the government has no business in determining whose relationship is worthy of marriage
a majority of the people of the world believe that homosexual marriage harms society. Even the voters of the liberal state of california voted it down twice. No one has to prove what they believe.
But if thats your argument--PROVE to me that gay marriage would be good for society. Don't state your opinion-prove it.
The burden of proof lies with the state when it seeks to deny a class of persons its civil liberties, not the other way around.
Its incumbent upon those opposed to same-sex couples accessing marriage law to prove such unions would be detrimental to society.
In Perry supporters of Proposition 8 failed to provide any tangible, objective, documented evidence that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law would in any way be harmful to society.
wrong again, I/we want equal treatment for homosexuals, I/we also want equal treatment for all same sex couples in a loving committed relationship--------regardless of whether or not they engage in some form of sex.
No you don't, you want to poison the discussion - it's pretty obvious. The intent is to reserve special privileges for couples like ours (i.e. different sex) and then through a boogy man try to dissuade people from supporting equal treatment for homosexuals. Because heaven knows, if we let the ghey's get married then we must allow brother to marry sister, father to marry daughter, mother to may daughter (if she divorces the father).
You'll probably deny it again, but it's obvious to any reasonable observer. Instead of defining legally valid and compelling government interest in denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law for like conditions - let's scare people with grandfather/grandson marriages.
>>>>
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
No you don't, you want to poison the discussion - it's pretty obvious. The intent is to reserve special privileges for couples like ours (i.e. different sex) and then through a boogy man try to dissuade people from supporting equal treatment for homosexuals. Because heaven knows, if we let the ghey's get married then we must allow brother to marry sister, father to marry daughter, mother to may daughter (if she divorces the father).
You'll probably deny it again, but it's obvious to any reasonable observer. Instead of defining legally valid and compelling government interest in denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law for like conditions - let's scare people with grandfather/grandson marriages.
>>>>
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
Using your "logic", it is the 14th Amendment that is your "slippery slope".
You are free to call it anything you want
Why force the government to call it what you want instead of what that married couple want?
I personally don't care what they call it and I'm not suggesting forcing anybody to do anything. What I'm suggesting is that if homosexuals want legal recognition of same sex marriage in the states where voters have so far rejected it that they may want to show some empathy for those that do have deeply held moral objections to redefining the traditional institution of marriage and accept a compromise where they get all the privileges and responsibilities under a different name.
Alternatively they can keep banging their heads into a brick wall and getting nowhere in those states.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein
excellent logical suggestion---------but face it, thats not what the gays want. They want the government to FORCE those who object to gay marriage to accept and condone it or be punished. Its thought control at its worst.
This debate is not about equality-------its about government mandated societal change.
I personally don't care what they call it and I'm not suggesting forcing anybody to do anything. What I'm suggesting is that if homosexuals want legal recognition of same sex marriage in the states where voters have so far rejected it that they may want to show some empathy for those that do have deeply held moral objections to redefining the traditional institution of marriage and accept a compromise where they get all the privileges and responsibilities under a different name.
Alternatively they can keep banging their heads into a brick wall and getting nowhere in those states.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein
excellent logical suggestion---------but face it, thats not what the gays want. They want the government to FORCE those who object to gay marriage to accept and condone it or be punished. Its thought control at its worst.
This debate is not about equality-------its about government mandated societal change.
te der..........there i just responded to the level you are posting at
the lunacy of the left continues
No you don't, you want to poison the discussion - it's pretty obvious. The intent is to reserve special privileges for couples like ours (i.e. different sex) and then through a boogy man try to dissuade people from supporting equal treatment for homosexuals. Because heaven knows, if we let the ghey's get married then we must allow brother to marry sister, father to marry daughter, mother to may daughter (if she divorces the father).
You'll probably deny it again, but it's obvious to any reasonable observer. Instead of defining legally valid and compelling government interest in denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law for like conditions - let's scare people with grandfather/grandson marriages.
>>>>
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
Using your "logic", it is the 14th Amendment that is your "slippery slope".
a majority of the people of the world believe that homosexual marriage harms society. Even the voters of the liberal state of california voted it down twice. No one has to prove what they believe.
But if thats your argument--PROVE to me that gay marriage would be good for society. Don't state your opinion-prove it.
The burden of proof lies with the state when it seeks to deny a class of persons its civil liberties, not the other way around.
Its incumbent upon those opposed to same-sex couples accessing marriage law to prove such unions would be detrimental to society.
In Perry supporters of Proposition 8 failed to provide any tangible, objective, documented evidence that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law would in any way be harmful to society.
denying gays the right to use the word "marriage" in no way denies their civil rights. If you think it does, please explain.
excellent logical suggestion---------but face it, thats not what the gays want. They want the government to FORCE those who object to gay marriage to accept and condone it or be punished. Its thought control at its worst.
This debate is not about equality-------its about government mandated societal change.
te der..........there i just responded to the level you are posting at
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
Using your "logic", it is the 14th Amendment that is your "slippery slope".
When did I advocate a return to slavery?
If you think the 14th is about gay rights please quote the language that specifically addresses homosexuality.
Using your "logic", it is the 14th Amendment that is your "slippery slope".
When did I advocate a return to slavery?
If you think the 14th is about gay rights please quote the language that specifically addresses homosexuality.
Are you aware that there were three attempts to amend the Constitution to prohibit interracial marriage? The reason? He was certain the 14th Amendment would be used to legalize interracial marriage.
Ah, bigots never change.
When did I advocate a return to slavery?
If you think the 14th is about gay rights please quote the language that specifically addresses homosexuality.
Are you aware that there were three attempts to amend the Constitution to prohibit interracial marriage? The reason? He was certain the 14th Amendment would be used to legalize interracial marriage.
Ah, bigots never change.
your grasp of history is biased by your sexual orientation.
yes, there was a time when a lot of people were opposed to interracial marriage. That does not make them bigots. There was a time when most people believed that the world was flat, that does not make them idiots.
Interracial marriage between one man and one woman does not equate in any way to a "marriage" of two men or two women. That is a failed analogy--and you know it.
Why is it that liberals are totally intolerant of anyone who may hold an opinion that differs from theirs? Why do you think your opinion is superior to anyone else's? Why are you libs always out to demonize anyone who disagrees with you?
You demand tolerance from others but display total intolerance yourselves. I think its called hypocrisy.
(from wiki)
