Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[there4eyeM]

The question of 'marriage' between any two people is far from important as a 'problem' for America.

 

[Syriusly]

So 'separate but equal' again? That doesn't have a good track record. Mainly because the separation doesn't exist because they are equal. But because they're not.

so you admit that this is all about the word 'marriage' and has nothing to do with equality, the constitution, fairness or anything else. Its about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal to normal heterosexual human beings.

So you admit that your opposition is based upon your bigotry towards homose

So 'separate but equal' again? That doesn't have a good track record. Mainly because the separation doesn't exist because they are equal. But because they're not.

so you admit that this is all about the word 'marriage' and has nothing to do with equality, the constitution, fairness or anything else. Its about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal to normal heterosexual human beings.

So you admit that this is all about your bigotry towards homosexuals, and how you want force society to discriminate against them based upon your own personal bias?

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage. .

And that is Bullshit.

The Supreme Court ruled that mixed race marriage bans were unconstitutional- that did not make a precedent making every other form of marriage legal- it did make clear that the Supreme Court has the authority to look at any State marriage law and decide whether or not it is constitutional.

The reason why the State of Virginia lost in Loving v. Virginia was, in part, because they could not provide any compelling state interest that was achieved by denying them their rights to marriage.

This is the essential question in this case: Is there any compelling State interest in preventing same gender couples from marrying?

And that would be the same question asked for any other kind of marriage bans, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court rules in favor of same gender marriage.

If you cannot provide a compelling State interest in preventing a polygamous marriage- why exactly do you oppose polygamous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

It's not merely a nomenclature issue.

Yes, it is. That is all it is. It is all about the word marriage being used to define a homosexual union.

the entire debate is about the word 'marriage'. If you on the left would face that reality we might be able to solve this mess.

So 'separate but equal' again? That doesn't have a good track record. Mainly because the separation doesn't exist because they are equal. But because they're not.

so you admit that this is all about the word 'marriage' and has nothing to do with equality, the constitution, fairness or anything else. Its about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal to normal heterosexual human beings.

So you admit that your opposition is based upon your bigotry towards homose

It's not merely a nomenclature issue.

Yes, it is. That is all it is. It is all about the word marriage being used to define a homosexual union.

the entire debate is about the word 'marriage'. If you on the left would face that reality we might be able to solve this mess.

So 'separate but equal' again? That doesn't have a good track record. Mainly because the separation doesn't exist because they are equal. But because they're not.

so you admit that this is all about the word 'marriage' and has nothing to do with equality, the constitution, fairness or anything else. Its about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal to normal heterosexual human beings.

So you admit that this is all about your bigotry towards homosexuals, and how you want force society to discriminate against them based upon your own personal bias?

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

That is a solution to a non-existent problem.

 

[mdk]

A whole thread filled with "this is my last post" about gay marriage. Too funny!

 

[Seawytch]

A whole thread filled with "this is my last post" about gay marriage. Too funny!

You can find that statement from Chickenfish in just about every "gay" thread. It's his "go to" when he's getting his ass kicked.

 

[mdk]

A whole thread filled with "this is my last post" about gay marriage. Too funny!

You can find that statement from Chickenfish in just about every "gay" thread. It's his "go to" when he's getting his ass kicked.

He cries about people spending too much time talking about gay marriage and then spends most of his time here whining about gay marriage. lol

 

[RKMBrown]

So you admit that your opposition is based upon your bigotry towards homose
So you admit that this is all about your bigotry towards homosexuals, and how you want force society to discriminate against them based upon your own personal bias?

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage.

For you information, the ACLU is already working on taking polygamy to the SC using gay marriage as precedent.

You, my friend, know nothing about how our legal system works.

Bullshit. Apparently, I know a helluva lot more about our legal system than you do. Anyone can make any argument, that does not mean the court will hear or agree with their argument.

Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

I don't care if you agree, it is already in the works.
Time will prove me right, and you wrong
Watch.

With plural marriages, yes. That argument can be used.
However, with incest and sex with children harm is done to the children, thus the argument does not hold any weight.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you admit that your opposition is based upon your bigotry towards homose
So you admit that this is all about your bigotry towards homosexuals, and how you want force society to discriminate against them based upon your own personal bias?

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Red Minnow will be disappointed to find out his fellow incest/polygamy travelers will have to build their own legal cases to make their desires legal.

Odd isn't it that people claiming to be filled with moral sanctity are arguing for incest, plural marriages, and sex with children if consenting adults of the same sex are allowed to marry. Really odd.

You idiot, I am opposed to those things, but I understand that you revert to insults when you have lost the debate to a logical, reasoned, intelligent response.

I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. Time will prove me right.

No, time won't prove that being gay is the same as raping a child.

 

[Syriusly]

For a guy who keeps telling us how important this issue is to him- he sure wants to talk about it alot.

 

[Skylar]

so you admit that this is all about the word 'marriage' and has nothing to do with equality, the constitution, fairness or anything else. Its about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal to normal heterosexual human beings.

So you admit that your opposition is based upon your bigotry towards homose

so you admit that this is all about the word 'marriage' and has nothing to do with equality, the constitution, fairness or anything else. Its about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal to normal heterosexual human beings.

So you admit that this is all about your bigotry towards homosexuals, and how you want force society to discriminate against them based upon your own personal bias?

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage.

For you information, the ACLU is already working on taking polygamy to the SC using gay marriage as precedent.

You, my friend, know nothing about how our legal system works.

So much for you saying you were no longer posting on gay threads.

This is what....the the 2nd or 3rd thread he's started lamenting about how many threads there are on gay marriage?

 

[Redfish]

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage.

For you information, the ACLU is already working on taking polygamy to the SC using gay marriage as precedent.

You, my friend, know nothing about how our legal system works.

Bullshit. Apparently, I know a helluva lot more about our legal system than you do. Anyone can make any argument, that does not mean the court will hear or agree with their argument.

Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.
.

Reasons for approving mixed race marraige
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will be made for all forms of marriage, using mixed race marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

If the courts allow mixed race marriages- then the court is opening the door to incest.......

(paraphrasing the arguments of the State of Virginia- 1967)

race and sexual orientation are not analogous.

 

[Redfish]

so you admit that this is all about the word 'marriage' and has nothing to do with equality, the constitution, fairness or anything else. Its about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal to normal heterosexual human beings.

So you admit that your opposition is based upon your bigotry towards homose

so you admit that this is all about the word 'marriage' and has nothing to do with equality, the constitution, fairness or anything else. Its about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal to normal heterosexual human beings.

So you admit that this is all about your bigotry towards homosexuals, and how you want force society to discriminate against them based upon your own personal bias?

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage. .

And that is Bullshit.

The Supreme Court ruled that mixed race marriage bans were unconstitutional- that did not make a precedent making every other form of marriage legal- it did make clear that the Supreme Court has the authority to look at any State marriage law and decide whether or not it is constitutional.

The reason why the State of Virginia lost in Loving v. Virginia was, in part, because they could not provide any compelling state interest that was achieved by denying them their rights to marriage.

This is the essential question in this case: Is there any compelling State interest in preventing same gender couples from marrying?

And that would be the same question asked for any other kind of marriage bans, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court rules in favor of same gender marriage.

If you cannot provide a compelling State interest in preventing a polygamous marriage- why exactly do you oppose polygamous marriage?

a mixed race marriage is ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. Thats why the SC ruled as it did. "Loving" in no way sets a precedent for same sex marriage.

Its not up to me to provide a reason to oppose polygamy, that is the question for you. If you favor SSM, on what grounds do you oppose polygamy?

 

[bripat9643]

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage.

For you information, the ACLU is already working on taking polygamy to the SC using gay marriage as precedent.

You, my friend, know nothing about how our legal system works.

Bullshit. Apparently, I know a helluva lot more about our legal system than you do. Anyone can make any argument, that does not mean the court will hear or agree with their argument.

Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

I don't care if you agree, it is already in the works.
Time will prove me right, and you wrong
Watch.

With plural marriages, yes. That argument can be used.
However, with incest and sex with children harm is done to the children, thus the argument does not hold any weight.

Incestuous marriages don't involve children. All participants are adults. How are you going to object to that?

 

[bripat9643]

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Red Minnow will be disappointed to find out his fellow incest/polygamy travelers will have to build their own legal cases to make their desires legal.

Odd isn't it that people claiming to be filled with moral sanctity are arguing for incest, plural marriages, and sex with children if consenting adults of the same sex are allowed to marry. Really odd.

You idiot, I am opposed to those things, but I understand that you revert to insults when you have lost the debate to a logical, reasoned, intelligent response.

I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. Time will prove me right.

No, time won't prove that being gay is the same as raping a child.

No one is talking about raping a child, moron.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

In the grand scheme of things, this issue should be at the bottom of the totem pole. What is happening to Mother Earth is far more important than this.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

My guess is. The MAJORITY of the people are already sick and tried of hearing them whine, bully others and wants it stopped being used for their agendas of division dirty politics.

They were kicked out of Congress into minority for this very reason. so kick them the rest of the way out come 2016

Gays were kicked out of Congress? Do tell..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Why do you keep starting topics about how many gay marriage topics there are? Is there something you want to tell us?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

In inverted commas, meaning not a direct quote but pretty much what the rhetoric over gay people comes down to, excluding the icky factor.

then you admit you lied and that he never said anything even close to that.

Never lied. Look up Ted Cruz's gay jihad nonsense.

aw, did that hurt your wittle fweeelings? poor rambling whiny baby
waaa. the thread isn't about Ted Cruz. so try and stay on the topic if that's at all possible

So you believe terrorists aren't evil? Well, how else could you support Reagan's marriage of convience with the Taliban:
View attachment 40571

, jihad is an act that someone does to try and SHOVE their VIEWS down everyone's throats. so what he said fits what the homosexuals are doing to us right now. but DISHONESTITY is a trait and tactic of you on left

"DINHONESTITY"



Ahhhh, yet another golden Stephanie-moment.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Pop23]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

In the grand scheme of things, this issue should be at the bottom of the totem pole. What is happening to Mother Earth is far more important than this.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think a ruling by the court that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage is pretty important.

The arguments for SSM ( btw it is not about gay marriage) are the same for SSSM.

 

[Skylar]

So you admit that your opposition is based upon your bigotry towards homose
So you admit that this is all about your bigotry towards homosexuals, and how you want force society to discriminate against them based upon your own personal bias?

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage. .

And that is Bullshit.

The Supreme Court ruled that mixed race marriage bans were unconstitutional- that did not make a precedent making every other form of marriage legal- it did make clear that the Supreme Court has the authority to look at any State marriage law and decide whether or not it is constitutional.

The reason why the State of Virginia lost in Loving v. Virginia was, in part, because they could not provide any compelling state interest that was achieved by denying them their rights to marriage.

This is the essential question in this case: Is there any compelling State interest in preventing same gender couples from marrying?

And that would be the same question asked for any other kind of marriage bans, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court rules in favor of same gender marriage.

If you cannot provide a compelling State interest in preventing a polygamous marriage- why exactly do you oppose polygamous marriage?

a mixed race marriage is ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. Thats why the SC ruled as it did. "Loving" in no way sets a precedent for same sex marriage.

Loving demonstrates that the states are subject to constitutional guarantees related to marriage. And that marriage is a right.

Given that marriage is a right, you'll need far more than 'because we can' to withold that right from gays. You'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end.

Opponents of gay marriage have none of these three. And they need all three.