Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[JakeStarkey]

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner

Another fallacy of false comparison.

 

[Pop23]

This should be illegal

Nuff for me

Why?

The two demographic groups are nowhere close to being equal by biology. The law cannot change this TRUTH.

They are equal under the constitution so the "coupling" bullshit is just that. Bullshit.

If they ain't equal in biology, ain't no law going to change that

You are denying biology, a sure sign of delusion.

Your lovers dick fits nicely in your ass -- a perfect biological match.

Here's a bit of bad news, I ain't interested in you, so describing your experiences with anal sex aint helping your cause

 

[Pop23]

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner

Another fallacy of false comparison.

Wrong weird lil dood

 

[Conservative65]

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.

Your state's definition is unconstitutional.

Not when the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.

 

[Czernobog]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

 

[Conservative65]

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

 

[Pop23]

Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

See how the delusional justify their delusions?

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

 

[Conservative65]

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner

Another fallacy of false comparison.

Not when your entire argument for same sex marriage is based on equality.

 

[Czernobog]

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago. You are talking about changing existing law in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly did exist 100 years ago.

Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.

I am sure you realize this.

Correct?

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

 

[Conservative65]

Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

 

[Pop23]

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago. You are talking about changing existing law in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly did exist 100 years ago.

Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.

I am sure you realize this.

Correct?

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

 

[jillian]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

are you ranting about the bakers again?

no one is allowed to be subjected to bigotry when someone runs a business offering public accommodation.

or do we need to explain it to yet again?

 

[bodecea]

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

So...the Supreme Court oversteps their bounds whenever they declare a state law unconstitutional? like they did in Loving v. Virginia?

 

[Conservative65]

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

See how the delusional justify their delusions?

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

The same sex marriage supporters are the ones who claim that two consenting adults should marry even if they are of the same gender because not allowing it is somehow violating their rights. However, the same ones justify how type sof marriage they disagree with shouldn't be allowed all the while claiming they support equality.

 

[jillian]

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

 

[Czernobog]

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

This should be illegal

Nuff for me

Why?

The two demographic groups are nowhere close to being equal by biology. The law cannot change this TRUTH.

And marriage has nothing to do with biology, and your fanaticism cannot change THAT truth.

 

[jillian]

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

See how the delusional justify their delusions?

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

The same sex marriage supporters are the ones who claim that two consenting adults should marry even if they are of the same gender because not allowing it is somehow violating their rights. However, the same ones justify how type sof marriage they disagree with shouldn't be allowed all the while claiming they support equality.

if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

your bigotry ends at others' noses.

 

[Conservative65]

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

 

[Conservative65]

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

See how the delusional justify their delusions?

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

The same sex marriage supporters are the ones who claim that two consenting adults should marry even if they are of the same gender because not allowing it is somehow violating their rights. However, the same ones justify how type sof marriage they disagree with shouldn't be allowed all the while claiming they support equality.

if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

your bigotry ends at others' noses.

Should I take your statement to mean you would support a brother and sister marrying?

 

[bodecea]

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

Hey hetero! I'm sorry that you are frightened by gay people.