Marriage is "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you when it comes to Marriage in Law.

Repeatedly.



peace...

I don't draw my logic from the Supreme Court.

They don't & cant change the biological & very simple fact that reproduction is relevant to our survival, marriage is not.

Good for you... Have you come to terms with the Fact that Man/Woman is Inherently, Naturally, Factually and Biologically UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman?...

Since yer usin' yer Logic cap today and all.



peace..

Marriage is not a requirement for reproduction, nor is reproduction a requirement for marriage; the two are not linked, twice.

 

[Seawytch]

It's the procreation angle that was tried and failed. It got a big laugh out of the SCOTUS recently though. Keep tilting.

 

[dblack]

I don't draw my logic from the Supreme Court.

They don't & cant change the biological & very simple fact that reproduction is relevant to our survival, marriage is not.

Good for you... Have you come to terms with the Fact that Man/Woman is Inherently, Naturally, Factually and Biologically UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman?...

Since yer usin' yer Logic cap today and all.



peace..

Marriage is not a requirement for reproduction, nor is reproduction a requirement for marriage; the two are not linked, twice.

True enough. But... since when is government in charge of reproduction?

 

[Seawytch]

Good for you... Have you come to terms with the Fact that Man/Woman is Inherently, Naturally, Factually and Biologically UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman?...

Since yer usin' yer Logic cap today and all.



peace..

Marriage is not a requirement for reproduction, nor is reproduction a requirement for marriage; the two are not linked, twice.

True enough. But... since when is government in charge of reproduction?

When 1st cousins want to marry. Look it up

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because society sees fit to use the coercive power of the state to grant special privileges to those who marry who they're 'supposed' to.

Yes, the state has a compelling interest in promoting some relationships over others.
Heresy to the narco libtards who want to destroy society, but there you have it.

Right. And this is where statist authoritarians and libertarians part ways. In your view, ultimately, government 'owns' society and has 'compelling interest' in telling us how to live. I reject that point of view outright.

Nonsense.

Marriage is contract law, a vital and fundamental component of Western civilization.

Which is why denying gay Americans access to that law is repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because Society won't say on it's own that Man/Woman is Equal to Man/Man or Woman/Woman...

Because it's not... So they will get the Despotic Branch to say it in Law.

It will always be Lie, even it is Law.

We are letting the Mentally Ill Dictate Policy and Corrupt and Deviant Politicians and Judges are allowing it to happen.



peace...

Because society sees fit to use the coercive power of the state to grant special privileges to those who marry who they're 'supposed' to.

Yes, the state has a compelling interest in promoting some relationships over others.
Heresy to the narco libtards who want to destroy society, but there you have it.

More nonsense.

Seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law places that law in jeopardy.

 

[dblack]

Yes, the state has a compelling interest in promoting some relationships over others.
Heresy to the narco libtards who want to destroy society, but there you have it.

Right. And this is where statist authoritarians and libertarians part ways. In your view, ultimately, government 'owns' society and has 'compelling interest' in telling us how to live. I reject that point of view outright.

Nonsense.

Marriage is contract law, a vital and fundamental component of Western civilization.

Which is why denying gay Americans access to that law is repugnant to the Constitution.

There's no question of their right to contract, in any fashion they choose. The question is whether they should be afforded the same privileges afforded to the heterosexual marriages promoted by government. Which is exactly the kind of trouble we run into when government presumes to 'promote' specific lifestyles. Whom we maintain relationships with (sexual, familial, work, etc...) is a private matter and simply no one else's business but the people involved.

 

[dblack]

Because society sees fit to use the coercive power of the state to grant special privileges to those who marry who they're 'supposed' to.

Yes, the state has a compelling interest in promoting some relationships over others.
Heresy to the narco libtards who want to destroy society, but there you have it.

More nonsense.

Seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law places that law in jeopardy.

Come on now, you agree with Rabbi on the fundamentals. You both think the state should be in charge of deciding who we can marry. You're just quibbling over details.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No matter how many different internet forum discussions you start, no matter what irrelevant "points" that you try to make, no matter how much you complain and vote, there isn't a law against gay marriage and there never will be, and Christianity does not overpower the US Constitution at all, ever.

Get used to it.

You are correct. There is no law against gay marriage. So what are gays upset about?

What aren't the gays upset about? I know a few... drama queens to the last one. But I digress... it's all part of the larger plan to break down all societal norms to the point that anything is acceptable. At that point, we've succumbed to the point that any abomination is ok, no matter how egregious. Think about it... there's even a push now to deem pedophilia a "sexual orientation".

 

[editec]

Marriage isn't necessary for mankinds procreation or survival.

Still...its a handy social system that most societies have defined as they needed it defined.

 

[Katzndogz]

Its not fundamental to our survival, we can survive without marriage.

Simple logic destroys.

No society has ever survived without marriage.
Next.

No society has ever survived same sex marriage although many of them tried.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, the state has a compelling interest in promoting some relationships over others.
Heresy to the narco libtards who want to destroy society, but there you have it.

Right. And this is where statist authoritarians and libertarians part ways. In your view, ultimately, government 'owns' society and has 'compelling interest' in telling us how to live. I reject that point of view outright.

Nonsense.

Marriage is contract law, a vital and fundamental component of Western civilization.

Which is why denying gay Americans access to that law is repugnant to the Constitution.

There is no class of "gay Americans." People who prefer homosexual sex have every right to marry, just as people who prefer heterosexual sex. There is no discrimination.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, the state has a compelling interest in promoting some relationships over others.
Heresy to the narco libtards who want to destroy society, but there you have it.

More nonsense.

Seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law places that law in jeopardy.

Come on now, you agree with Rabbi on the fundamentals. You both think the state should be in charge of deciding who we can marry. You're just quibbling over details.

Not really. But if someone wants the benefits the state affords, then he has to play by the rules the state sets.
You should really stop being blinded by knee-jerk narco-libertarianism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good for you... Have you come to terms with the Fact that Man/Woman is Inherently, Naturally, Factually and Biologically UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman?...

Since yer usin' yer Logic cap today and all.



peace..

Marriage is not a requirement for reproduction, nor is reproduction a requirement for marriage; the two are not linked, twice.

True enough. But... since when is government in charge of reproduction?

The government is in charge of civil marriage therefore it is obligated to protect the rights of those who would choose to enter into a civil marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Yes, the state has a compelling interest in promoting some relationships over others.
.

If that is true, why wouldn't the state have a compelling interest in promoting long term monogamous same sex relationships?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ironically the OP supports civil unions, which are simply marriages with a different name,

so he in effect refutes all of his arguments against gay marriage with his argument FOR gay civil unions.

 

[dblack]

Marriage is not a requirement for reproduction, nor is reproduction a requirement for marriage; the two are not linked, twice.

True enough. But... since when is government in charge of reproduction?

The government is in charge of civil marriage

Really? All of them? Are they also in charge of dating?

 

[dblack]

More nonsense.

Seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law places that law in jeopardy.

Come on now, you agree with Rabbi on the fundamentals. You both think the state should be in charge of deciding who we can marry. You're just quibbling over details.

Not really. But if someone wants the benefits the state affords, then he has to play by the rules the state sets.
You should really stop being blinded by knee-jerk narco-libertarianism.

Yes. 'Blind' is a word you can throw around with aplomb. Along with your other non-sense terms.

The state shouldn't be in the business of 'affording benefits' to certain classes of people. That's corporatism in a nutshell.

 

[bendog]

Come on now, you agree with Rabbi on the fundamentals. You both think the state should be in charge of deciding who we can marry. You're just quibbling over details.

Not really. But if someone wants the benefits the state affords, then he has to play by the rules the state sets.
You should really stop being blinded by knee-jerk narco-libertarianism.

Yes. 'Blind' is a word you can throw around with aplomb. Along with your other non-sense terms.

The state shouldn't be in the business of 'affording benefits' to certain classes of people. That's corporatism in a nutshell.

but when "certain classes" are comprised of all people over age 67 (or thereabouts), there aren't really any certain classes because the class is comprised of all citizens living that long. Further, corporatism in not involved with setting up a legal system of transferring property from one dead citizen to his/her heirs, nor with defining whom may serve as a healthcare decision maker of another citizen.

 

[dblack]

Not really. But if someone wants the benefits the state affords, then he has to play by the rules the state sets.
You should really stop being blinded by knee-jerk narco-libertarianism.

Yes. 'Blind' is a word you can throw around with aplomb. Along with your other non-sense terms.

The state shouldn't be in the business of 'affording benefits' to certain classes of people. That's corporatism in a nutshell.

but when "certain classes" are comprised of all people over age 67 (or thereabouts), there aren't really any certain classes because the class is comprised of all citizens living that long. Further, corporatism in not involved with setting up a legal system of transferring property from one dead citizen to his/her heirs, nor with defining whom may serve as a healthcare decision maker of another citizen.

Corporatism is involved whenever a person's rights depend on which interest group they belong to, rather than their status as a citizen.