"Smaller government" advocates

[frigidweirdo]

The reason to allow gay marriage is because it's fair.

The theory of Human Rights basically dictates that you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt others. Brother and sister marrying is not allowed because any offspring from such a relationship is at risk, because for some biological reason bad things happen when children are born to such close relatives.

Also, when you marry you become related. You're already related as brother and sister. Therefore you don't need to get married to be related. Things like inheritance aren't a problem between siblings whereas they are for those who can't get married.

For example, a gay couple decided that the older one (by a year or two) would adopt the younger one in order to get the security they could not get because gay marriage had been unavailable.

Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry

"
Gay couple, one of whom adopted the other, has adoption vacated now that they can marry"

"So, in 2000, Novak adopted MacArthur – two years his junior – as his son. The move reduced their inheritance tax liability and gave them hospital visitation and other legal rights then unavailable to same-sex couples."

Inheritance tax is a massive issue.

How Marriage Inequality Prompts Gay Partners to Adopt One Another

"The couple told ABC News that they were primarily concerned about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax, which could make one partner liable for a 15 percent tax on the estate (as opposed to 4 percent if they pushed ahead with adoption). "

An Overview of Federal Rights Granted to Married Couples | Human Rights Campaign

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law."

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

God isn't forcing anyone to live by his words.

God established the laws of nature and provided each individual with the means to choose to obey those laws and enjoy the benefits of having done so, or to reject those laws and suffer the consequences.

One has no need to accept it... that is simply how it is. Just as one cannot flap their arms and fly... one cannot choose to join with a person of their own gender... and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to the laws of nature; OKA: God's Law.

What you're trying to do is to reject God's law and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to such. Which is as foolish... as it is impossible, but it's your injuring of others, in leading them toward chaos, calamity and catastrophe... where you convict yourself.

For this, you will pay dearly. And you should know that claiming ignorance, will not be accepted as a viable defense.

Obviously people can choose to be homosexual

You do realize that there have been people with homosexual preferences ever since there have been people don't you?

Seems to me if you believe god made all those people by snapping his fingers that he knew some of them would be homosexual

No, people can't CHOOSE to be homosexual. They can choose to have sex with a person of the same sex, that doesn't make them a homosexuals. It's like saying a man becomes a woman if he puts lipstick on.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

God isn't forcing anyone to live by his words.

God established the laws of nature and provided each individual with the means to choose to obey those laws and enjoy the benefits of having done so, or to reject those laws and suffer the consequences.

One has no need to accept it... that is simply how it is. Just as one cannot flap their arms and fly... one cannot choose to join with a person of their own gender... and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to the laws of nature; OKA: God's Law.

What you're trying to do is to reject God's law and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to such. Which is as foolish... as it is impossible, but it's your injuring of others, in leading them toward chaos, calamity and catastrophe... where you convict yourself.

For this, you will pay dearly. And you should know that claiming ignorance, will not be accepted as a viable defense.

Obviously people can choose to be homosexual

You do realize that there have been people with homosexual preferences ever since there have been people don't you?

Seems to me if you believe god made all those people by snapping his fingers that he knew some of them would be homosexual

No, people can't CHOOSE to be homosexual. They can choose to have sex with a person of the same sex, that doesn't make them a homosexuals. It's like saying a man becomes a woman if he puts lipstick on.

so then tell me how do you explain men who have only ever been with and are only attracted to other men or women who have only been with and are only attracted to other women

Are you saying they don't choose to be homosexual but that they are born (created) that way?

 

[dcraelin]

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

Then the conversation about marriage being recognized across any relationship is a misnomer. Why bring it up then? That is dishonest in its presentation. You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

That is not only big government but also rather anti-freedom. It is the core problem with giving the government a say or morality or doling out 'rights' - at some point in time you are no longer going to agree with that morality.

We can do 2 things here - remove the government from marriage entirely (no more benefits derived from marrying) OR we can recognize whatever marriage 2 adults wish to enter into. I really do not care what direction it goes in but I certainly cannot support the government selectively giving benefits out to only those that it agrees are living 'properly.'

I think the gay rights advocates, hypocritically, show no sympathy for single people. Why should people receive tax benefits solely because of their relationship status.................THAT is unfair..............and if the court ruled as it did it should have also made sure no tax benefits could be allowed based solely on marriage status.............they did not which shows one flaw in their reasoning.

 

[dcraelin]

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

The "founding fathers" did not want a bill of Rights at all. It was pressure by the Constitutions opponents that led to the Bill of Rights..

And it definitely wasn't to protect from so-called "mob rule" but to protect from elitists ensconced in government.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

God isn't forcing anyone to live by his words.

God established the laws of nature and provided each individual with the means to choose to obey those laws and enjoy the benefits of having done so, or to reject those laws and suffer the consequences.

One has no need to accept it... that is simply how it is. Just as one cannot flap their arms and fly... one cannot choose to join with a person of their own gender... and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to the laws of nature; OKA: God's Law.

What you're trying to do is to reject God's law and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to such. Which is as foolish... as it is impossible, but it's your injuring of others, in leading them toward chaos, calamity and catastrophe... where you convict yourself.

For this, you will pay dearly. And you should know that claiming ignorance, will not be accepted as a viable defense.

Obviously people can choose to be homosexual

You do realize that there have been people with homosexual preferences ever since there have been people don't you?

Seems to me if you believe god made all those people by snapping his fingers that he knew some of them would be homosexual

Look... Skull, sexuality is a consequence of the biological imperative. It's promoted through hormones... and some people succumb to misfires of those glands... it happens. No one is denying that. But that's all it is. And it doesn't FORCE anyone to DO anything. Acting on those impulses IS a DECISION, a CHOICE.

But hey... everyone has their own cross to bear, and we must each, individually deal with whatever that is... but none of us should demand that the world should accept our deviant kink as preferred above all else or suffer the full weight of a hostile culture, if they fail to do so.

Deviancy is what it is... a deviation from normality. And while it exists, that doesn't make it normal and it sure as hell doesn't establish a requirement for anyone to accept it.

What's more

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We can do 2 things here - remove the government from marriage entirely (no more benefits derived from marrying) OR we can recognize whatever marriage 2 adults wish to enter into.

Or we can just recognize the source of the angst as bing that of irrational fools, who are incapable of objective reason, this they're unable of recognizing that Marriage is defined by the laws of nature; specifically human physiology... wherein two distinct but complementing genders, with each respectively designed to join with the other.

On the irrepressible recognition that this represents what is OKA: The Biological Imperative, and that such comes with great benefit to the species... the importance of which stands well above the abyss of irrational need of a tiny minority of weak minded freaks, whose very existence represents inviability.

Which for those keeping score, is something a viable culture needs to avoid.

I think the gay rights advocates, hypocritically, show no sympathy for single people. Why should people receive tax benefits solely because of their relationship status.................THAT is unfair..............and if the court ruled as it did it should have also made sure no tax benefits could be allowed based solely on marriage status.............they did not which shows one flaw in their reasoning.

Beautiful... yet ANOTHER self evident flaw in the latest whim of the Supreme Legislature has been well noted.

Well said.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman. It's called The Biological Imperative. Look it up... .

Be careful to fully consider the word "imperative" and note that its weight registers in an entirely superior to the 'choice', with regard to one's lifestyle.

 

[Dan Daly]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

Uh, no. I want smaller government, I want a smaller military, I want less intervention in foreign crapholes, I could give a crap who marries who, I am for legalizing marijuana. But hey, thanks for the stereotyping...what are you going to tell us next...that all blacks are thugs, or that all muzzies are terrorists...or that all mexicans are illegal aliens?

 

[Dan Daly]

Conservatives, libertarians, and most others on the right also have this ridiculous, inconsistent perception of what constitutes 'government.'

They bemoan the 'evils' of the Federal government, while at the same time take no issue with state and local governments seeking to deny citizens their rights, when in fact state and local governments exhibit the greater likelihood of indeed violating citizens' rights.

It was state and local governments who fought to retain segregation.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny citizens their right to counsel.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny interracial couples their right to marry.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny women their right to privacy.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny immigrants their right to due process.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law.

It was state and local governments who fought to criminalize homosexuality in violation of the 14th Amendment.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny gay Americans their right to enter into marriage contracts.

And these are but a few examples of how state and local governments sought to violate the fundamental, inalienable rights and protected liberties of each American, where not only did conservatives, libertarians, and most others on the right fail to take issue with such violations, but actually supported and facilitated these and other violations of citizens' civil rights.

So much for 'small government' conservatives.

More wacky stereotypes. Little boxes, little boxes, and they're all made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same, right?

Sorry, I don't conform to your little boxes. It's called independent thinking...you might try it some time rather than having others do your thinnin' for you and looking like an ignorant tool.

Governments are necessary, but their powers should be limited to what they do best and they must not be allowed to grow into monstrosities that prioritize their own power and perpetuation over the welfare and liberty of the citizens that consent to their governance. If you want to have some clue to what I believe, rather than relying on wacky stereotypes and incorrect assumptions, read the founding documents of our Republic: The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

God isn't forcing anyone to live by his words.

God established the laws of nature and provided each individual with the means to choose to obey those laws and enjoy the benefits of having done so, or to reject those laws and suffer the consequences.

One has no need to accept it... that is simply how it is. Just as one cannot flap their arms and fly... one cannot choose to join with a person of their own gender... and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to the laws of nature; OKA: God's Law.

What you're trying to do is to reject God's law and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to such. Which is as foolish... as it is impossible, but it's your injuring of others, in leading them toward chaos, calamity and catastrophe... where you convict yourself.

For this, you will pay dearly. And you should know that claiming ignorance, will not be accepted as a viable defense.

Obviously people can choose to be homosexual

You do realize that there have been people with homosexual preferences ever since there have been people don't you?

Seems to me if you believe god made all those people by snapping his fingers that he knew some of them would be homosexual

Look... Skull, sexuality is a consequence of the biological imperative. It's promoted through hormones... and some people succumb to misfires of those glands... it happens. No one is denying that. But that's all it is. And it doesn't FORCE anyone to DO anything. Acting on those impulses IS a DECISION, a CHOICE.

But hey... everyone has their own cross to bear, and we must each, individually deal with whatever that is... but none of us should demand that the world should accept our deviant kink as preferred above all else or suffer the full weight of a hostile culture, if they fail to do so.

Deviancy is what it is... a deviation from normality. And while it exists, that doesn't make it normal and it sure as hell doesn't establish a requirement for anyone to accept it.

What's more

My god man why be hostile to people who are doing you absolutely no harm?

And oh religious one whatever happened to the mandate judge not lest ye be judged?

And there is no normal ALL human behavior exists on a continuum from sex to sleep to eating and drinking it always has and it always will

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

God isn't forcing anyone to live by his words.

God established the laws of nature and provided each individual with the means to choose to obey those laws and enjoy the benefits of having done so, or to reject those laws and suffer the consequences.

One has no need to accept it... that is simply how it is. Just as one cannot flap their arms and fly... one cannot choose to join with a person of their own gender... and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to the laws of nature; OKA: God's Law.

What you're trying to do is to reject God's law and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to such. Which is as foolish... as it is impossible, but it's your injuring of others, in leading them toward chaos, calamity and catastrophe... where you convict yourself.

For this, you will pay dearly. And you should know that claiming ignorance, will not be accepted as a viable defense.

Obviously people can choose to be homosexual

You do realize that there have been people with homosexual preferences ever since there have been people don't you?

Seems to me if you believe god made all those people by snapping his fingers that he knew some of them would be homosexual

Look... Skull, sexuality is a consequence of the biological imperative. It's promoted through hormones... and some people succumb to misfires of those glands... it happens. No one is denying that. But that's all it is. And it doesn't FORCE anyone to DO anything. Acting on those impulses IS a DECISION, a CHOICE.

But hey... everyone has their own cross to bear, and we must each, individually deal with whatever that is... but none of us should demand that the world should accept our deviant kink as preferred above all else or suffer the full weight of a hostile culture, if they fail to do so.

Deviancy is what it is... a deviation from normality. And while it exists, that doesn't make it normal and it sure as hell doesn't establish a requirement for anyone to accept it.

What's more

My god man why be hostile to people who are doing you absolutely no harm?

And oh religious one whatever happened to the mandate judge not lest ye be judged?

And there is no normal ALL human behavior exists on a continuum from sex to sleep to eating and drinking it always has and it always will

Not sure where that's coming from... One doesn't require to judge another's relationship with God... where the other states it outright and publicly.

And since it's a certainty that we are all to be judged... I frankly can't find the potential for a downside.

None of which changes what sexual deviancy is, or that anyone is obligated to accept another who willfully engages in such.

But thank you for your contribution, nonetheless.

 

[Skylar]

And why should people be forced to live by the words of your god?

God isn't forcing anyone to live by his words.

God established the laws of nature and provided each individual with the means to choose to obey those laws and enjoy the benefits of having done so, or to reject those laws and suffer the consequences.

One has no need to accept it... that is simply how it is. Just as one cannot flap their arms and fly... one cannot choose to join with a person of their own gender... and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to the laws of nature; OKA: God's Law.

What you're trying to do is to reject God's law and enjoy the legitimacy that only comes with adhering to such. Which is as foolish... as it is impossible, but it's your injuring of others, in leading them toward chaos, calamity and catastrophe... where you convict yourself.

For this, you will pay dearly. And you should know that claiming ignorance, will not be accepted as a viable defense.

Obviously people can choose to be homosexual

You do realize that there have been people with homosexual preferences ever since there have been people don't you?

Seems to me if you believe god made all those people by snapping his fingers that he knew some of them would be homosexual

Look... Skull, sexuality is a consequence of the biological imperative. It's promoted through hormones... and some people succumb to misfires of those glands... it happens. No one is denying that. But that's all it is. And it doesn't FORCE anyone to DO anything. Acting on those impulses IS a DECISION, a CHOICE.

But hey... everyone has their own cross to bear, and we must each, individually deal with whatever that is... but none of us should demand that the world should accept our deviant kink as preferred above all else or suffer the full weight of a hostile culture, if they fail to do so.

Deviancy is what it is... a deviation from normality. And while it exists, that doesn't make it normal and it sure as hell doesn't establish a requirement for anyone to accept it.

What's more

My god man why be hostile to people who are doing you absolutely no harm?

And oh religious one whatever happened to the mandate judge not lest ye be judged?

And there is no normal ALL human behavior exists on a continuum from sex to sleep to eating and drinking it always has and it always will

Not sure where that's coming from... One doesn't require to judge another's relationship with God... where the other states it outright and publicly.

And since it's a certainty that we are all to be judged... I frankly can't find the potential for a downside.

I don't think 'certainty' means what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'opinion'. As there's no evidence that your conception of god even exists. Let alone has any of the attributes you've assigned him. To say nothing of your assumed 'judging'.

You're arguing your subjective beliefs as objective facts again, Keyes. And that never works out for you.

None of which changes what sexual deviancy is, or that anyone is obligated to accept another who willfully engages in such.

But thank you for your contribution, nonetheless.

Your 'acceptance' is gloriously irrelevant. As we don't base our laws on your subjective opinions.

Nope, not even when you pretend you're 'nature'.

Nope, not even when you pretend you're 'god'.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

Then the conversation about marriage being recognized across any relationship is a misnomer. Why bring it up then? That is dishonest in its presentation. You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

That is not only big government but also rather anti-freedom. It is the core problem with giving the government a say or morality or doling out 'rights' - at some point in time you are no longer going to agree with that morality.

We can do 2 things here - remove the government from marriage entirely (no more benefits derived from marrying) OR we can recognize whatever marriage 2 adults wish to enter into. I really do not care what direction it goes in but I certainly cannot support the government selectively giving benefits out to only those that it agrees are living 'properly.'

I think the gay rights advocates, hypocritically, show no sympathy for single people. Why should people receive tax benefits solely because of their relationship status.................THAT is unfair..............and if the court ruled as it did it should have also made sure no tax benefits could be allowed based solely on marriage status.............they did not which shows one flaw in their reasoning.

I wouldn't say that is hypocritical. The left thinks the government should shower tons of people with special benefits. That is not hypocritical - it is just wrong IMHO.

Much of gay rights supporters are hypocritical though because they focus on a single group that is 'popular' to support at this time rather than actual marriage rights.

 

[FA_Q2]

We can do 2 things here - remove the government from marriage entirely (no more benefits derived from marrying) OR we can recognize whatever marriage 2 adults wish to enter into.

Or we can just recognize the source of the angst as bing that of irrational fools, who are incapable of objective reason, this they're unable of recognizing that Marriage is defined by the laws of nature; specifically human physiology... wherein two distinct but complementing genders, with each respectively designed to join with the other.

That is a mere rationalization in showing governmental benefits on one group by taking from another.

Call it natural all you want - it is not for the government to support one group that does things 'correctly.' Not if you truly believe that the government should stay out of our business.

On the irrepressible recognition that this represents what is OKA: The Biological Imperative, and that such comes with great benefit to the species... the importance of which stands well above the abyss of irrational need of a tiny minority of weak minded freaks, whose very existence represents inviability.

Which for those keeping score, is something a viable culture needs to avoid.

A 'viable' culture simply needs to let people live as they will without putting others at risk/limiting their rights.

I think the gay rights advocates, hypocritically, show no sympathy for single people. Why should people receive tax benefits solely because of their relationship status.................THAT is unfair..............and if the court ruled as it did it should have also made sure no tax benefits could be allowed based solely on marriage status.............they did not which shows one flaw in their reasoning.

Beautiful... yet ANOTHER self evident flaw in the latest whim of the Supreme Legislature has been well noted.

Well said.

It really is not a flaw in the ruling at all. It is a fundamental flaw with the government being allowed to give benefits to one group of people to the exclusion of others/

 

[Skylar]

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

And you're more than welcome to whatever belief you want. But what you can't do is try to abrogate people's rights with your belief.

Which is why your ilk lost this debate in court.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Per our law, marriage is right. You can ignore legal precedent. But legal precedent doesn't change because you ignore it. You're free to 'believe' whatever you'd like. You're not free to legislate whatever you'd like. The power of the States is checked by the rights of the individual.

 

[FA_Q2]

You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman. It's called The Biological Imperative. Look it up... .

Be careful to fully consider the word "imperative" and note that its weight registers in an entirely superior to the 'choice', with regard to one's lifestyle.

What you want marriage to be is irrelevant. Particularly when you start demanding that the government support it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

And therein not only lies your force but also the crux of your problem. Religion has no place in deciding government benefits and demanding that everyone accept your definition so that you can receive benefits that they do not have access to is simply wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wait a minute, I thought you said marriage was necessary because of government benefits; that we shouldn't be allowed to deny any people those benefits.

No, you are not "related" once you are married. You are simply two different people that took a religious vow or obtained a government sanction.

So you have marriage standards and limitations but others shouldn't? How is that right? If this is all about government benefits as you say, then no two people should be forbidden that right as you call it. For that matter, several people shouldn't be forbidden those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids if they get married. Well, why can't brother and sister have kids without being married? If that's the problem, then it okay that father and son get married, or sister and sister? You're okay with that, right?

It seems to me you are a hypocrite. Most of society wanted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those standards are not acceptable to you and others. You have no grounds to expand those standards that shouldn't apply to everybody else.

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

Then the conversation about marriage being recognized across any relationship is a misnomer. Why bring it up then? That is dishonest in its presentation. You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

That is not only big government but also rather anti-freedom. It is the core problem with giving the government a say or morality or doling out 'rights' - at some point in time you are no longer going to agree with that morality.

We can do 2 things here - remove the government from marriage entirely (no more benefits derived from marrying) OR we can recognize whatever marriage 2 adults wish to enter into. I really do not care what direction it goes in but I certainly cannot support the government selectively giving benefits out to only those that it agrees are living 'properly.'

Why not? We do it all the time now. If you make X amount of money, the government will give you the benefit of food. If you don't have a place to live because you don't make enough money, the government will give you an apartment or house to live in. If you are a minority, the government has laws that puts you ahead of the line when it comes to jobs--especially government jobs.

So yes, government does pick and choose who they give benefits to. And I don't support marriage rights for anybody. I would sooner government pulled out of marriage. As I said earlier, I don't see marriage as a right no more than I think smoking cigarettes or driving a car is a right.

Big government is not saying they don't wish to sanction something, big government is forcing people to accept something they would rather not accept or have in their society.