Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.

I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.

Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.

The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.

Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.

You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government, it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined

Just a bit of a correction.

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News

A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.

Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.

 

[Syriusly]

What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News

A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.

Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.

LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News

A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.

Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.

LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.

My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia. Cool.

 

[Syriusly]

What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News

A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.

Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.

LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.

My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia. Cool.

Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....

 

[Steinlight]

No, I don't want gays to be able to No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

Gays and Lesbians can adopt children or create children with a surrogate, but the two partners can't have children.

Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. That is an argument against gay adoption, not one for gay marriage. As for the discussion about children not receiving inheritance. Shouldn't they have thought of that by creating a will before time, or going through the proper adopting channels and gaining full parental rights on hospital issues? None of this is necessary for marriage, and it is a disingenuous argument that is supposed to pull at our heart strings so we give sanction to their immoral lifestyle.

 

[Steinlight]

[
The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.

I think you are thinking of something completely different from marriage.

Because marriage right now doesn't promote procreation or a stable family environment for children.

Marriage only legally binds two people together.

Those two people can choose to try to have children or chose to not try to have children- and the state doesn't care.
Those two people can have children- and not marry- and the state doesn't care.
Those two people can be married, and have children- and decide to divorce- and the state doesn't care.

Really- if you want marriage to promote procreation and a stable family environment you needs something radically different than current legal marriage. There is nothing about current marriage law that accomplishes those things.

Hell Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they cannot have children together before they can marry- i.e. just the opposite of what you say the role of the State should be.

But if you want to treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples who cannot- or do not want to have children- and only allow marriage to those couples who are physically capable of procreation, and commit to having children, and become divorced if they don't have children- but can't divorce if they do have children- well that would be equal at least.

But right now all you are in essence saying is that you don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.

No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
..

Well there we go.

You start from a position of wanting to deny children parents- if they happen to be gay.

And you don't believe in equal treatment.

You don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.

In the words of Justice Kennedy- the likely swing vote when this reaches the Supreme Court:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

You are telling Justice Kennedy "Hell no"

Well, if Justice Kennedy said that, I am very disappointed in him. That a learned man would say something as silly that children's biased opinions should be reflected in our law and government policy. I suppose he thinks that voting age restrictions are bad as well. Aren't children's voices important on a plethora of issues by that standard?

 

[Syriusly]

No, I don't want gays to be able to No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow..

The legal claim has been successfully made multiple times now.

You may disagree with it- but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that thousands of people in love now are legally able to get married.

 

[Syriusly]

No, I don't want gays to be able to No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

Gays and Lesbians can adopt children or create children with a surrogate, but the two partners can't have children.
.

Exactly the same as millions of heterosexual couples.

This is the problem with your argument- the State does not care about the potential of procreation when it comes to opposite gender couples. They only raise the issue when it comes to same gender couples.

Because the argument is only meant to prevent same gender marriage.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News

A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.

Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.

LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.

My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia. Cool.

Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....

Nope. Your team is targeting Christian businesses. Gay mafia fits.

 

[Steinlight]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.

I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.

Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.

The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.

Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.

You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government, it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined

Just a bit of a correction.

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits.

I have no issue with Bob and Edna getting married, but elderly man and woman people getting married isn't the traditional purpose. Like I said before, they form the foundation of the nuclear family with the union, so theoretically they could still go adopt, but the institution of marriage isn't based on this exception to the rule. It isn't just a question of tradition, which is important, but a question of societal continuity and survival. Marriage doesn't exist as an institution to have everyone get married when they are 80 and have no children, or letting two men play house, if that were the case society would cease to exist after a generation. It is for a man and woman in the sight of God and the community to make vows of loyalty to one another for life and provide a stable and legitimate union for their future children to be brought into.

So there you go, you and your wife built a family, even you admit it.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

 

[Syriusly]

A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.

Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.

LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.

My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia. Cool.

Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....

Nope. Your team is targeting Christian businesses. Gay mafia fits.

Hmmm see, you and I have different images of the mafia.

To me, the mafia are criminals working outside the law, breaking legs, running prostitution rings, selling drugs.

But to you- gay citizens who have the temerity to claim protection under the law are the real mafia.

And you are terrified of them.

 

[Steinlight]

No, I don't want gays to be able to No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow..

The legal claim has been successfully made multiple times now.

You may disagree with it- but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that thousands of people in love now are legally able to get married.

The idea that has come about in post-modern secular society that marriage is based on two people "loving each other", is flawed, and one of the primary reasons the institution is falling apart. Marriage the the moral context to pursue romantic sex and love, not vice versa.

 

[Syriusly]

My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.

I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.

Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.

The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.

Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.

You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government, it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined

Just a bit of a correction.

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..

No.

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.

 

[Syriusly]

No, I don't want gays to be able to No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow..

The legal claim has been successfully made multiple times now.

You may disagree with it- but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that thousands of people in love now are legally able to get married.

The idea that has come about in post-modern secular society that marriage is based on two people "loving each other", is flawed, and one of the primary reasons the institution is falling apart. Marriage the the moral context to pursue romantic sex and love, not vice versa.

Says you.

Marriage has meant many things, including that the husband transferred ownership from the father to himself.

I like this quote:


"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Maybe you don't intend to marry for love, but I certainly did.

My wife and I married to be partners- to enjoy a 'bilateral loyalty' for the rest of our lives.

Our child is a welcome bonus to our marriage- but our marriage would be just as successful whether we were ever lucky enough to be parents or not.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.

LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.

My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia. Cool.

Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....

Nope. Your team is targeting Christian businesses. Gay mafia fits.

Hmmm see, you and I have different images of the mafia.

To me, the mafia are criminals working outside the law, breaking legs, running prostitution rings, selling drugs.

But to you- gay citizens who have the temerity to claim protection under the law are the real mafia.

And you are terrified of them.

I think the gay mafia is just the same. Passing unjust laws and then targeting Christians who will not give in to threats, thereby losing their business. Piss on the queers.

 

[Syriusly]

[. It is for a man and woman in the sight of God and the community to make vows of loyalty to one another for life and provide a stable and legitimate union for their future children to be brought into.
.

We make the vows whether there is any chance of future children or not.

You keep making this linkage to procreation, but the law keeps denying this linkage.

The law allows heterosexuals who cannot procreate to marry- but you say homosexuals can't be allowed to marry because they won't be able to procreate.

Wisconsin even requires some couples to prove that they are unable to procreate before they will allow them to marry- unless of course they are gay- which Wisconsin law prohibited.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.

My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia. Cool.

Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....

Nope. Your team is targeting Christian businesses. Gay mafia fits.

Hmmm see, you and I have different images of the mafia.

To me, the mafia are criminals working outside the law, breaking legs, running prostitution rings, selling drugs.

But to you- gay citizens who have the temerity to claim protection under the law are the real mafia.

And you are terrified of them.

I think the gay mafia is just the same. Passing unjust laws and then targeting Christians who will not give in to threats, thereby losing their business. Piss on the queers.

Yeah- I imagine you do go around watching over your shoulders in fear of the 'gay mafia' with their pink tommy guns and rainbow cadillacs.

 

[Steinlight]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it.

If it came up where they illegally used these procedures in violation of the law, than yes, I would arrest them. If a person is so reckless as to violate such a serious law, why should they be allowed to have children if they were willing to take such a risk in the first place. If they are willing to risk their biological child like this, why wouldn't they put their child at risk in other ways? It shows they don't care about the child if they do something like that in that case.

Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.