Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[NYcarbineer]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY]It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married) - YouTube[/ame]



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

When did I mention anything about money?

Furthermore, when heterosexuals marry, is their only reason for marrying versus living together money?

I don't pretend to know why every couple decides to marry, but I'd be willing to bet it's not just the money for most.

Everytime someone like ScreamingEagle asks if it's about the money, it makes me wonder if that's why they had a legal marriage.

No one accused you of not being incredibly naive.

Love you too, Sammy.

 

[ima]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

Republicans will have lost to homos. Republicans more then anything don't want to get beaten by homos.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

Anyone? An - y - one?

 

[Samson]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

My kids cannot afford to contribute to a social security system that will payout to surviving spouses of queer unions.

If that's not "sufficiently bad" enough, then I suppose you wouldn't mind making their SS payments for them....



Oh, I forgot:

Nothing is so "sufficiently bad" that it cannot be supported with other people's money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

My kids cannot afford to contribute to a social security system that will payout to surviving spouses of queer unions.

If that's not "sufficiently bad" enough, then I suppose you wouldn't mind making their SS payments for them....



Oh, I forgot:

Nothing is so "sufficiently bad" that it cannot be supported with other people's money.

That is discrimination based on sexual orientation. You can't do that, constitutionally, even if the alternative is cheaper.

P.S. thank you at least for answering. You have risen above the other pussies around here, at least momentarily.

 

[bodecea]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

My kids cannot afford to contribute to a social security system that will payout to surviving spouses of queer unions.

If that's not "sufficiently bad" enough, then I suppose you wouldn't mind making their SS payments for them....



Oh, I forgot:

Nothing is so "sufficiently bad" that it cannot be supported with other people's money.

Tax-paying gay citizens have been paying out straight benefits all along. But what you want is to have your cake and not share. Figures.

 

[Samson]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

My kids cannot afford to contribute to a social security system that will payout to surviving spouses of queer unions.

If that's not "sufficiently bad" enough, then I suppose you wouldn't mind making their SS payments for them....



Oh, I forgot:

Nothing is so "sufficiently bad" that it cannot be supported with other people's money.

That is discrimination based on sexual orientation. You can't do that, constitutionally, even if the alternative is cheaper.

P.S. thank you at least for answering. You have risen above the other pussies around here, at least momentarily.

You asked for a "bad consequence." Increasing indebtedness is within this criteria.

But I would be happy to oblige your discrimination arguement: Rather than excluding queers, we should dismantal the social security system for everyone as a result of increased costs associated with legal queer marriage.

 

[Samson]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

My kids cannot afford to contribute to a social security system that will payout to surviving spouses of queer unions.

If that's not "sufficiently bad" enough, then I suppose you wouldn't mind making their SS payments for them....



Oh, I forgot:

Nothing is so "sufficiently bad" that it cannot be supported with other people's money.

Tax-paying gay citizens have been paying out straight benefits all along. But what you want is to have your cake and not share. Figures.

I would be happy to oblige your discrimination arguement: Rather than excluding queers, we should dismantal the social security system for everyone as a result of increased costs associated with legal queer marriage.

 

[LittleNipper]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

My kids cannot afford to contribute to a social security system that will payout to surviving spouses of queer unions.

If that's not "sufficiently bad" enough, then I suppose you wouldn't mind making their SS payments for them....



Oh, I forgot:

Nothing is so "sufficiently bad" that it cannot be supported with other people's money.

That is discrimination based on sexual orientation. You can't do that, constitutionally, even if the alternative is cheaper.

P.S. thank you at least for answering. You have risen above the other pussies around here, at least momentarily.

Men who look at naked boys/children on the internet are discriminated against. Sexual orientation certainly can be discriminated against, if it underminds society and ruins the definition of what is a family. Even the French (who look at Americans as fussy old prudes) seem to have a multitude of secular reasoning why they are against gay marriage. Marriage certainly is not for everyone. Some people are simply not mature enough.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My kids cannot afford to contribute to a social security system that will payout to surviving spouses of queer unions.

If that's not "sufficiently bad" enough, then I suppose you wouldn't mind making their SS payments for them....



Oh, I forgot:

Nothing is so "sufficiently bad" that it cannot be supported with other people's money.

That is discrimination based on sexual orientation. You can't do that, constitutionally, even if the alternative is cheaper.

P.S. thank you at least for answering. You have risen above the other pussies around here, at least momentarily.

Men who look at naked boys/children on the internet are discriminated against. Sexual orientation certainly can be discriminated against, if it underminds society and ruins the definition of what is a family. Even the French (who look at Americans as fussy old prudes) seem to have a multitude of secular reasoning why they are against gay marriage. Marriage certainly is not for everyone. Some people are simply not mature enough.

Do you really need that explained to you? Seriously?

 

[NYcarbineer]

My kids cannot afford to contribute to a social security system that will payout to surviving spouses of queer unions.

If that's not "sufficiently bad" enough, then I suppose you wouldn't mind making their SS payments for them....



Oh, I forgot:

Nothing is so "sufficiently bad" that it cannot be supported with other people's money.

That is discrimination based on sexual orientation. You can't do that, constitutionally, even if the alternative is cheaper.

P.S. thank you at least for answering. You have risen above the other pussies around here, at least momentarily.

You asked for a "bad consequence." Increasing indebtedness is within this criteria.

But I would be happy to oblige your discrimination arguement: Rather than excluding queers, we should dismantal the social security system for everyone as a result of increased costs associated with legal queer marriage.

I asked for a bad consequence sufficient for the government to justify banning same sex marriage, or IOW not giving same sex marriage equality.

You have to justify discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation.

 

[Samson]

That is discrimination based on sexual orientation. You can't do that, constitutionally, even if the alternative is cheaper.

P.S. thank you at least for answering. You have risen above the other pussies around here, at least momentarily.

Men who look at naked boys/children on the internet are discriminated against. Sexual orientation certainly can be discriminated against, if it underminds society and ruins the definition of what is a family. Even the French (who look at Americans as fussy old prudes) seem to have a multitude of secular reasoning why they are against gay marriage. Marriage certainly is not for everyone. Some people are simply not mature enough.

Do you really need that explained to you? Seriously?

Did you really not expect this absurd response? Seriously?

 

[rightwinger]

My kids cannot afford to contribute to a social security system that will payout to surviving spouses of queer unions.

If that's not "sufficiently bad" enough, then I suppose you wouldn't mind making their SS payments for them....



Oh, I forgot:

Nothing is so "sufficiently bad" that it cannot be supported with other people's money.

Tax-paying gay citizens have been paying out straight benefits all along. But what you want is to have your cake and not share. Figures.

I would be happy to oblige your discrimination arguement: Rather than excluding queers, we should dismantal the social security system for everyone as a result of increased costs associated with legal queer marriage.

By your argument, gays have been paying into our tax system for hundreds of years without being eligible for the benefits

If anything, we should be paying gays greater federal benefits to make up for what was lost

 

[Samson]

That is discrimination based on sexual orientation. You can't do that, constitutionally, even if the alternative is cheaper.

P.S. thank you at least for answering. You have risen above the other pussies around here, at least momentarily.

You asked for a "bad consequence." Increasing indebtedness is within this criteria.

But I would be happy to oblige your discrimination arguement: Rather than excluding queers, we should dismantal the social security system for everyone as a result of increased costs associated with legal queer marriage.

I asked for a bad consequence sufficient for the government to justify banning same sex marriage, or IOW not giving same sex marriage equality.

You have to justify discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation.

I expected you'd need to redefine the premise.

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest consequence of gay marriage

I consider sex between gays to be yucky. So I demand that my government not recognize their relationship the same way my non-yucky relationship is considered

However, I also consider sex between fat people to be yucky. So my government should not recognize that relationship

I also consider sex between ugly people to be yucky. Who wants more ugly children? So we need to ban those relationships

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

the children of queer marriages will be denied either their mother or their father....

this has the potential to cause both personal and societal problems...

 

[Seawytch]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

the children of queer marriages will be denied either their mother or their father....

this has the potential to cause both personal and societal problems...

Studies of the children of gay parents prove you wrong. Our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

 

[bodecea]

Could anyone please, in one post, clearly and succinctly, identify one bad consequence of giving same sex marriage equal status with opposite sex marriage,

and then explain why that consequence is sufficiently bad that it justifies the government opposing this?

Just ONE, please?

the children of queer marriages will be denied either their mother or their father....

this has the potential to cause both personal and societal problems...

No more or less than any family that is the result of messy divorce, death, adoption or test tube babies or surrogate. How long have you protested against THOSE marriages?