Poll- Marriage Equality

[daws101]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

hey asshat what do you think marriage is ?

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the legal definition now includes same sex couples. You can disagree with that. But it does not change the facts.

I don't give a damn about "legal" definitions...it's not actually marriage. It's two filthy degenerates playing house.

See I don't give a damn if a degenerate like you plays house or even gets married.

Marriage equality- even degenerates like yourself have the right to marry.

bravo!

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

All it is, is those governments saying so...nobody has to agree and most of the world does not agree.

 

[daws101]

false

Nope. True.

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.

Daws is claiming that just because some western countries voters or judges say that two people of the same sex in a relationship is the equvilant of an actual marriage by decree that it is so....it's not so.

not claiming anything, it's a statement of fact .
unlike your belief which is sheer speculation based on out moded and bias thinking.

 

[WinterBorn]

false

Nope. True.

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.

Daws is claiming that just because some western countries voters or judges say that two people of the same sex in a relationship is the equvilant of an actual marriage by decree that it is so....it's not so.

Since those marriages are recognized by the gov't, and they receive all the benefits of marriage, are bound by the same restraints as other marriages, and must be divorced to end it, Daws is correct.

Now if you want to add a qualifier, such as a religious belief or whatever, that might make more sense. But the definition of marriage was expanded to include same sex couples. They are as married as any straight couple is married.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Nope. True.

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.

Daws is claiming that just because some western countries voters or judges say that two people of the same sex in a relationship is the equvilant of an actual marriage by decree that it is so....it's not so.

not claiming anything, it's a statement of fact .
unlike your belief which is sheer speculation based on out moded and bias thinking.

You think two faggots equal a marriage, you have no facts...only opinion.

 

[WinterBorn]

All it is, is those governments saying so...nobody has to agree and most of the world does not agree.

Plenty of people didn't agree with interracial marriages either. But that did not make them invalid. It just meant some people disagreed with them.

Since a marriage license is the defining factor, if the state issues that license it is a valid marriage.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

No, he isn't correct. Governments can say all they want, rule how they want...doesn't make it so. Only to worthless plebs does it make it so.

 

[Ringel05]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

For money and legal reasons, think about it.

Legal reasons? What legal reasons are there to deny some people marriage and not others?

Why should someone who is single not be able to have the same rights?

Think about it.

You're obviously not thinking about it........ I'll give you a hint, ever hear of the concept of shared property and assets? Have you ever heard of the concept of divorce?
If you're single do you legally share property and assets with someone else? No.
What's the legal reason to deny some people marriage? Bestiality...... Paedophilia are two reasons that come to mind, they can't get "marriage licenses" to marry children or animals.

I should be able to legally share anything with anyone, even a group of people if I so choose.

That's no argument at all.

About the only issue would be children, but then, what does marriage have to do with that? Lots of people have children who are not even married.

As usaual you miss the point. What about a jointly owned house, jointly owned personal property? Your partnership ends and what? You kick your partner out and take his or her half? Even marriage used to be like that, the wife was essentially property and had no right to even inherit unless the husband left it to her and even then it could be contested. That's part of why the government became involved to protect both parties.
As for cost of living, I could live comfortably on 2K a month as a single person, add a spouse and then maybe some children and my costs triple. The government then gives us a tax break to help with that issue.
Your thinking on this issue is myopically uneducated at best.

 

[WinterBorn]

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.

Daws is claiming that just because some western countries voters or judges say that two people of the same sex in a relationship is the equvilant of an actual marriage by decree that it is so....it's not so.

not claiming anything, it's a statement of fact .
unlike your belief which is sheer speculation based on out moded and bias thinking.

You think two faggots equal a marriage, you have no facts...only opinion.

I think two people who love each other, whether they are faggots or bigots, and get a marriage license from the state, and commit to the relationship, it is a marriage. Your own opinion does not change the facts.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

All it is, is those governments saying so...nobody has to agree and most of the world does not agree.

Plenty of people didn't agree with interracial marriages either. But that did not make them invalid. It just meant some people disagreed with them.

Since a marriage license is the defining factor, if the state issues that license it is a valid marriage.

An interracial marriage is still between a man and woman. Apples and oranges. You can only argue from legal fictions obviously.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, he isn't correct. Governments can say all they want, rule how they want...doesn't make it so. Only to worthless plebs does it make it so.

Couples of different religions get married in a variety of ceremonies. They may be married in the eyes of their faith, but until they obtain the state marriage license, they are not legally married. If a couple gets a marriage license and has a civil ceremony, they are married.

The institution of marriage does not require your approval to be real, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved.

 

[kwc57]

It has been over 50 years since the Supreme Court told Virginia that the Lovings had the Constitutional right to marry each other despite the ban on inter-racial marriages.

It has been a year since the Supreme Court told multiple States that the Obergefells had the Constutional right to marry each other despite the ban on same gender marriages.

The question is- are you in favor of marriage equality in the United States- or against it?

The actual question is whether you favor redefining the meaning of a word or not?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.

Daws is claiming that just because some western countries voters or judges say that two people of the same sex in a relationship is the equvilant of an actual marriage by decree that it is so....it's not so.

not claiming anything, it's a statement of fact .
unlike your belief which is sheer speculation based on out moded and bias thinking.

You think two faggots equal a marriage, you have no facts...only opinion.

I think two people who love each other, whether they are faggots or bigots, and get a marriage license from the state, and commit to the relationship, it is a marriage. Your own opinion does not change the facts.

Doesn't make two men or two women couplings actual marriages, they're legal fictional claim is just a creation of the government. Its not actually marriage. Marriage is and always has and will mean a union between a man and woman in reality.

 

[Votto]

All it is, is those governments saying so...nobody has to agree and most of the world does not agree.

No, it is the government actively supporting certain sexual preferences for their own perceived self interest.

Way back when, it used to be that government favored marriage between a man a woman. They felt that it elevated the family unit and encouraged reproduction in a stable home.

However, today the government is hell bent on controlling the population, including curbing reproduction so such issues as abortion and gay marriage are now subsequently championed.

 

[WinterBorn]

All it is, is those governments saying so...nobody has to agree and most of the world does not agree.

Plenty of people didn't agree with interracial marriages either. But that did not make them invalid. It just meant some people disagreed with them.

Since a marriage license is the defining factor, if the state issues that license it is a valid marriage.

An interracial marriage is still between a man and woman. Apples and oranges. You can only argue from legal fictions obviously.

Not a legal fiction at all. And I was not comparing interracial marriages to same sex marriages. I was comparing the reactions of those who disagreed with each. There is a difference.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

All it is, is those governments saying so...nobody has to agree and most of the world does not agree.

No, it is the government actively supporting certain sexual preferences for their own perceived self interest.

Way back when, it used to be that government favored marriage between a man a woman. They felt that it elevated the family unit and encouraged reproduction in a stable home.

However, today the government is hell bent on controlling the population, including curbing reproduction so such issues as abortion and gay marriage are now subsequently championed.

100% agree.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.

Daws is claiming that just because some western countries voters or judges say that two people of the same sex in a relationship is the equvilant of an actual marriage by decree that it is so....it's not so.

not claiming anything, it's a statement of fact .
unlike your belief which is sheer speculation based on out moded and bias thinking.

You think two faggots equal a marriage, you have no facts...only opinion.

I think two people who love each other, whether they are faggots or bigots, and get a marriage license from the state, and commit to the relationship, it is a marriage. Your own opinion does not change the facts.

Doesn't make two men or two women couplings actual marriages, they're legal fictional claim is just a creation of the government. Its not actually marriage. Marriage is and always has and will mean a union between a man and woman in reality.

No. That is simply intentional ignorance. The fact that you claim it isn't marriage is meaningless. Those same sex couples get the same benefits, have the same responsibilities, and are recognized as married.

Oh, and marriages have been many things over the years. But the fact that you select one version and demand it never change is essentially meaningless.

 

[WinterBorn]

All it is, is those governments saying so...nobody has to agree and most of the world does not agree.

You can disagree al you want. It does not change that fact that same sex couples get married.

 

[daws101]

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.

Daws is claiming that just because some western countries voters or judges say that two people of the same sex in a relationship is the equvilant of an actual marriage by decree that it is so....it's not so.

not claiming anything, it's a statement of fact .
unlike your belief which is sheer speculation based on out moded and bias thinking.

You think two faggots equal a marriage, you have no facts...only opinion.

you got your ass handed to you and now we're faggots ?
who's the degenerate on this thread again?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

If D.C. were blown to smithereens today, there would be no protections for "gay marriages", outside of state governments of course...and most states have not favored it.

So it is a creation of the government and not true marriage.