Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[mal]

My narrative hasn't changed, Puppy, but yours grows increasingly desperate. Children are not a requirement for Civil Marriage in ANY state or municipality and some, in fact, prohibit procreation based on close familial ties. To use an inability to procreate as a reason to do deny civil marriage is ludicrous and even drew big laughs with the SCOTUS.

(Rather like you do with your posts)

Your Demands of an Exclusionary Expanion of Special Marriage Rights based Soley on your Defiance of your Natural Design and Equipment is what's Laughable...

If you Deserve Marriage Rights for your Coupling then so do Siblings who Care for Children and so do Sister Wives and Bisexuals.

Ultimately Marriage is a Reflection of what Created you...

And that is only Possible with Man and Wife.

The only reason you Demand Marriage for your Choice is because it Lacks the Validation on it's own that you so Desperately need from Society.

Unlike with a Black Man and a White Woman who can Create Life, you will NEVER be Viewed as Equal in your Choice in Society's eyes regardless of what the Law says.

We were not Designed in Nature to Couple with the Same Sex... End of Fucking List.

That's never going to change.



peace...

Truth is Truth.



peace...

 

[P@triot]

Finally, I've been a Republican since I turned 18 in 1978. You? I've been against ObamaCare since it's inception. I'm also against the government discriminating against it's citizen's for no compelling government interest.

So you're a liberal? I'm not a Republican. I don't believe in massive government, control, and debt. I've been a conservative since I was old enough to read and think.

 

[P@triot]

You said she wasn't legally married

No, I didn't. This only works if you read and comprehend when you've read. I never once said (or even implied) that she was "not legally married".

I said that the other people she was referring to were legally married and did so without redefining marriage (as she and the state of California had to temporarily do before reversing their own mistake).

Go back and read it again...

 

[P@triot]

The fact that those that oppose Marriage Equality didn't read their own laws and Constitution that they were trying to change, i.e. the provision of the California Constitution that states that initiatives become effective the day after the election is their own fault. Therefore Prop 8 did not invalidate her marriage which occurred prior to election day in 2008 and it's subsequent passage are irrelevant to discussion.

One last point here - when did I ever say (or even imply) that Prop 8 invalidated her marriage? The only time I mentioned Prop 8 is when she went all smug Nostradamus on us and made wild predictions about how the world was going to celebrate and embrace gay marriage.

Here's the bottom line - the only government in all of the U.S. that has to recognize her marriage is California (the state that issued her license). She's demanding that the entire nation recognize it (so she can work the system for everything it's worth), and that is flat wrong.

If you force the federal government to recognize her marriage, then you are forcing all (47?) states that don't recognize gay marriage to do so. Frankly, I love the fact that this is happening to a libtard. They are the ones who created this centralized communist control nightmare. Our entire system was designed for power to be in the hands of the people at the LOCAL level for this exact purpose - so that people could live how they wanted. If you wanted Cuban communism with gay marriage, you could have that in San Francisco and anyone there who opposed that could simply move to a bordering city 8 minutes away and live as a Constitutional conservative. We would all be happy. But the libtard realized they couldn't live like the parasites they wanted if working conservatives had the choice of where to live and take their tax dollars with them, so libtards expanded size, power, and control at the federal level so that there would be no where for conservatives to run to. But now, it's coming back to bite them on their lazy asses and I'm reveling in every second of her misery. People like her created their own problem, so watching them cry about it the loudest and suffer from their own policies makes me happy beyond words.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, the "case" was just heard by the SCOTUS and their ruling on it will be coming out in a few short weeks. When they strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional my legal marriage will be recognized by the Federal government.

Not even then will the "case" be closed.

Here we go again, the smug know-it-all telling us how the Supreme Court (people she doesn't know and have never met) will think and vote.

How great will it be if she turns out to be completely wrong on all of it? She'll look every bit as stupid as Harold Camping. Oh please God, for many reasons, let the Supreme Court strike down gay marriage.....!

 

[WorldWatcher]

You said she wasn't legally married

No, I didn't. This only works if you read and comprehend when you've read. I never once said (or even implied) that she was "not legally married".

I said that the other people she was referring to were legally married and did so without redefining marriage (as she and the state of California had to temporarily do before reversing their own mistake).

Go back and read it again...

Exactly, Seawytch is legally married also.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, the "case" was just heard by the SCOTUS and their ruling on it will be coming out in a few short weeks. When they strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional my legal marriage will be recognized by the Federal government.

Not even then will the "case" be closed.

Here we go again, the smug know-it-all telling us how the Supreme Court (people she doesn't know and have never met) will think and vote.

How great will it be if she turns out to be completely wrong on all of it? She'll look every bit as stupid as Harold Camping. Oh please God, for many reasons, let the Supreme Court strike down gay marriage.....!

I'm more sure of my "prediction" than you of of your desperate fervent wish.

We will know very soon. There's still time to take me up on my wager...

 

[Seawytch]

You said she wasn't legally married

No, I didn't. This only works if you read and comprehend when you've read. I never once said (or even implied) that she was "not legally married".

I said that the other people she was referring to were legally married and did so without redefining marriage (as she and the state of California had to temporarily do before reversing their own mistake).

Go back and read it again...

Exactly, Seawytch is legally married also.



>>>>

Yes I am and there is no reason for the Federal Government to treat my legal marriage any differently than anyone else's legal marriage.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, the "case" was just heard by the SCOTUS and their ruling on it will be coming out in a few short weeks. When they strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional my legal marriage will be recognized by the Federal government.

Not even then will the "case" be closed.

Here we go again, the smug know-it-all telling us how the Supreme Court (people she doesn't know and have never met) will think and vote.

How great will it be if she turns out to be completely wrong on all of it? She'll look every bit as stupid as Harold Camping. Oh please God, for many reasons, let the Supreme Court strike down gay marriage.....!

I'm more sure of my "prediction" than you of of your desperate fervent wish.

We will know very soon. There's still time to take me up on my wager...

I have not made a prediction nor have I made any wishes. I have simply talked about the facts (such as the state of California shooting down gay marriage) - facts which you find inconvenient.

 

[P@triot]

Yes I am and there is no reason for the Federal Government to treat my legal marriage any differently than anyone else's legal marriage.

You mean other than the fact that the entire nation (well, almost the entire nation) does not recognize gay marriage? And even your own state has since recognized their own mistake.

It's remarkable that you think the federal government should recognize what 98% of the nation does not recognize.

Go get a life insurance policy - your family will be protected. Stop trying to get your fellow citizens to pay your way through life.

 

[SuMar]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Well, you're right only in part. No one bats an eye if the single parent is responsible and able to take care of child or children without the help of taxpayers.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's remarkable that you think the federal government should recognize what 98% of the nation does not recognize.

Twelve states (Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington)—as well as the District of Columbia.

That's 13 of 51 legal entities. Math says that's 25% not 98%.

Even if you feel like calculating the populations of each state, it will be much more that 2%.


>>>>

 

[mal]

It's remarkable that you think the federal government should recognize what 98% of the nation does not recognize.

Twelve states (Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington)—as well as the District of Columbia.

That's 13 of 51 legal entities. Math says that's 25% not 98%.

Even if you feel like calculating the populations of each state, it will be much more that 2%.


>>>>

Math says that the Legislatures Ignore the Will of the People or the Courts did.

When Liberal California Voters Voted AGAINST Gay Marriage when they Voted FOR Obama that wasn't good enough for the Activists...

TO THE COURTS!

It doesn't matter what the Law says... It will NEVER be Marriage.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Here we go again, the smug know-it-all telling us how the Supreme Court (people she doesn't know and have never met) will think and vote.

How great will it be if she turns out to be completely wrong on all of it? She'll look every bit as stupid as Harold Camping. Oh please God, for many reasons, let the Supreme Court strike down gay marriage.....!

I'm more sure of my "prediction" than you of of your desperate fervent wish.

We will know very soon. There's still time to take me up on my wager...

I have not made a prediction nor have I made any wishes. I have simply talked about the facts (such as the state of California shooting down gay marriage) - facts which you find inconvenient.

No Rotty, m'boy I made the prediction. You did, however, say this; "Oh please God, for many reasons, let the Supreme Court strike down gay marriage". That is a "fervent wish", Puppy.

Do you know anything about what they are ruling on?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes I am and there is no reason for the Federal Government to treat my legal marriage any differently than anyone else's legal marriage.

You mean other than the fact that the entire nation (well, almost the entire nation) does not recognize gay marriage? And even your own state has since recognized their own mistake.

It's remarkable that you think the federal government should recognize what 98% of the nation does not recognize.

Go get a life insurance policy - your family will be protected. Stop trying to get your fellow citizens to pay your way through life.

Is that why you got legally married, Puppy, so that "your fellow citizen can pay your way through life"?

 

[Seawytch]

Even if you feel like calculating the populations of each state, it will be much more that 2%.

>>>>

Especially with NY on that list and California (the most populous state) about to be.

 

[Murhy]

And she keeps going further off of the cliff of sanity...

When she wants to bilk the system for all it is worth, well then she "just like everybody else and entitled to the same benefits". But when it's pointed out how homosexuals are completely incapable of creating offspring, her narrative suddenly changes to "parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other". Uh, what?!? Isn't that what you built your entire weak argument on originally - that you are a parent just like everyone else, that you're children don't experience any lack of parenting just like everyone else, and that that entitles you to benefits?

My narrative hasn't changed, Puppy, but yours grows increasingly desperate. Children are not a requirement for Civil Marriage in ANY state or municipality and some, in fact, prohibit procreation based on close familial ties. To use an inability to procreate as a reason to do deny civil marriage is ludicrous and even drew big laughs with the SCOTUS.

(Rather like you do with your posts)

Your Demands of an Exclusionary Expanion of Special Marriage Rights based Soley on your Defiance of your Natural Design and Equipment is what's Laughable...

If you Deserve Marriage Rights for your Coupling then so do Siblings who Care for Children and so do Sister Wives and Bisexuals.

Ultimately Marriage is a Reflection of what Created you...

And that is only Possible with Man and Wife.

The only reason you Demand Marriage for your Choice is because it Lacks the Validation on it's own that you so Desperately need from Society.

Unlike with a Black Man and a White Woman who can Create Life, you will NEVER be Viewed as Equal in your Choice in Society's eyes regardless of what the Law says.

We were not Designed in Nature to Couple with the Same Sex... End of Fucking List.

That's never going to change.



peace...

I am an undergrad biomedical science student, and I learned something interesting in Genetics Recently.

As most of you probably know, if you are XX you are female, and if you are XY you are male.

However, there are several genetic mutations that can do crazy things, and I could give MULTIPLE examples, but just one will make my point.

A (Y) carrying sperm joins with the obviously (X) carrying female egg, forming an XY zygote, making a genotypic male.

HOWEVER, there is a region on that Y chromosome that MUST activate in order for the propper male hormones to be released that cause the baby to grow testicles, and a penis. If that region is NOT activated, then the fetus will grow into a phenotypic FEMALE! Even though the baby carries an X and Y chromosome, the baby will walk, talk, and look exactly like a female.

Literally a male in a females body. (Just to be clear, the reverse is also possible.)

Genetics is imperfect and it makes mistakes, so are we to say that we can deny a PERSON rights because they are in a SAME SEX relationship? The reality is that we dont always even know if it ACTUALLY IS a SAME SEX relationship.


Basically what I am saying, is that so many people are too concerned with what they see with their eyes, to even begin to look at whats inside of someone.

An XY man with a penis cant help but be attracted to an XX's breasts.....kind of like an XY MAN with a VAGINA cant help but be attracted to the same thing.....its literally EXACTLY the same....but it just looks different. You cant deny your genes.

 

[P@triot]

Yes I am and there is no reason for the Federal Government to treat my legal marriage any differently than anyone else's legal marriage.

You mean other than the fact that the entire nation (well, almost the entire nation) does not recognize gay marriage? And even your own state has since recognized their own mistake.

It's remarkable that you think the federal government should recognize what 98% of the nation does not recognize.

Go get a life insurance policy - your family will be protected. Stop trying to get your fellow citizens to pay your way through life.

Is that why you got legally married, Puppy, so that "your fellow citizen can pay your way through life"?

Neither me nor my wife have government pensions sweetie.... Game. Set. Match.

 

[P@triot]

Even if you feel like calculating the populations of each state, it will be much more that 2%.

>>>>

Especially with NY on that list and California (the most populous state) about to be.

The most populous (and liberal) state is not on that list sweetie. They shot you down...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And she keeps going further off of the cliff of sanity...

When she wants to bilk the system for all it is worth, well then she "just like everybody else and entitled to the same benefits". But when it's pointed out how homosexuals are completely incapable of creating offspring, her narrative suddenly changes to "parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other". Uh, what?!? Isn't that what you built your entire weak argument on originally - that you are a parent just like everyone else, that you're children don't experience any lack of parenting just like everyone else, and that that entitles you to benefits?

My narrative hasn't changed, Puppy, but yours grows increasingly desperate. Children are not a requirement for Civil Marriage in ANY state or municipality and some, in fact, prohibit procreation based on close familial ties. To use an inability to procreate as a reason to do deny civil marriage is ludicrous and even drew big laughs with the SCOTUS.

(Rather like you do with your posts)

Your Demands of an Exclusionary Expanion of Special Marriage Rights based Soley on your Defiance of your Natural Design and Equipment is what's Laughable...

If you Deserve Marriage Rights for your Coupling then so do Siblings who Care for Children and so do Sister Wives and Bisexuals.

Ultimately Marriage is a Reflection of what Created you...

And that is only Possible with Man and Wife.

The only reason you Demand Marriage for your Choice is because it Lacks the Validation on it's own that you so Desperately need from Society.

Unlike with a Black Man and a White Woman who can Create Life, you will NEVER be Viewed as Equal in your Choice in Society's eyes regardless of what the Law says.

We were not Designed in Nature to Couple with the Same Sex... End of Fucking List.

That's never going to change.



peace...

What you fail to understand in the context of your (willful?) ignorance is the above is legally, and thankfully, irrelevant.

Same-sex couples are entitled to their equal protection rights concerning marriage law predicated on their personal liberty and right as individuals to pursue self-determination free from interference from the state, independent of one’s ‘biology’ or genetics.

It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Opposing equal protection rights for same-sex couples based solely on some inane and subjective perception of ‘natural design’ and ‘equipment’ is actually what is laughable, in addition to being offensive to fundamental tenets of the Constitution and society.