Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Broncho4]

The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.

 

[Broncho4]

TheOldSchool: The word regulated in the 2nd amendment refers to the mechanism for proper functioning. As in, a well regulated engine is necessary for the performance of an automobile. That does not imply that regulation should be placed on it.

 

[Pop23]

Dummy, they are races.

Homosexuality is not a race.

This may be an obtuse concept...but humans are part of the human race, and Homosexuals are Homo Sapiens

So are mass murders and plumbers.

Ones called a contractor, the other a felon

Are you going to make a point?

I've made it, and you continue to miss it.

Who do murders, plumbers, or contractors have to do with the prohibition of gay marriage?

I think you meant what, not who.

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society.

By the way, you brought it up.

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

 

[toxicmedia]

This may be an obtuse concept...but humans are part of the human race, and Homosexuals are Homo Sapiens

So are mass murders and plumbers.

Ones called a contractor, the other a felon

Are you going to make a point?

I've made it, and you continue to miss it.

Who do murders, plumbers, or contractors have to do with the prohibition of gay marriage?

I think you meant what, not who.

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society.

By the way, you brought it up.

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

 

[Pop23]

So are mass murders and plumbers.

Ones called a contractor, the other a felon

Are you going to make a point?

I've made it, and you continue to miss it.

Who do murders, plumbers, or contractors have to do with the prohibition of gay marriage?

I think you meant what, not who.

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society.

By the way, you brought it up.

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

 

[toxicmedia]

I've made it, and you continue to miss it.

Who do murders, plumbers, or contractors have to do with the prohibition of gay marriage?

I think you meant what, not who.

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society.

By the way, you brought it up.

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

 

[Seawytch]

I think you meant what, not who.

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society.

By the way, you brought it up.

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

I'd rephrase that since gays ARE civilly married and have been doing so in the US for a decade.

 

[Boss]

"The moral controversy is never going away"?.......the moral controversy about inter-racial marriges went away. Why not same sex marriages as well?

Because it's not the same thing, as you've repeatedly been told. The long hard fight against racial discrimination is actually religiously rooted. Quaker ministers began the abolition movement and a baptist minister led the Civil Rights movement. Discrimination on basis of race has been largely what the Bible details as the struggle for Christians and Jews. While homosexuality is an abomination.

 

[Boss]

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

I'm still waiting for you to square your "states rights" position on civil marriage with:

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

You can't use the race dodge on those.

Well I realize that some liberals think states rights ought never exist in any form, but since that is how the Constitution established our nation, we're going to stick with the 10th Amendment and the fact that states do retain power in our system.

Does the federal government issue marriage licenses? No. It is something authorized by the state, not the federal government. It is a state function, a state right.

 

[Seawytch]

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

I'm still waiting for you to square your "states rights" position on civil marriage with:

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

You can't use the race dodge on those.

Well I realize that some liberals think states rights ought never exist in any form, but since that is how the Constitution established our nation, we're going to stick with the 10th Amendment and the fact that states do retain power in our system.

Does the federal government issue marriage licenses? No. It is something authorized by the state, not the federal government. It is a state function, a state right.

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

 

[Pop23]

I think you meant what, not who.

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society.

By the way, you brought it up.

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

I think you meant what, not who.

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society.

By the way, you brought it up.

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

It would indeed be refreshing to get this out of the weeds.

A good start would be to agree that there are two distinct demographic groups, very different from each other within this discussion.

One group, same sex couples cannot procreate within the couple. This is an absolute truth. Any and all offspring created by these couples must be created by using material provided by an outside source.

These couples have no need for birth control when interacting with each other, nor do they have to worry about the side effect of, or the long term health problems certain forms of birth control can cause. This is a considerable economic and health benefit to the same sex couple.

The lack of ability to procreate within the coupling has nothing to do with age, disability, fear or possible economic damage to the unit.

The second group, opposite sex couples must be concerned about procreation. Their interaction will often create a pregnancy. This pregnancy can cause health complications including death. Expensive steps most often times are required to not procreate in this group. Certain birth control methods have both immediate and long term health consequences. Others involve surgery. None of this applies to same sex couplings.

Should these couples find it difficult or impossible to procreate it is always due to injury, disability, age, fear of physical damage or economic damage to the unit.

The dynamics of these two groups, in this, the most basic need of success of the species, could not be more different.

How's that for a start

 

[Czernobog]

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race.

See this is the beauty of having court rulings as a matter of historical record. You get to go back,a and quote them directly:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'...."
Just so we're clear, that is not a commentary on race. That is a commentary on marriage. The ruling of Loving v Virginia was not limited to just questions of racial inequality, as much as you might with is was.

 

[Czernobog]

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

It would indeed be refreshing to get this out of the weeds.

A good start would be to agree that there are two distinct demographic groups, very different from each other within this discussion.

One group, same sex couples cannot procreate within the couple. This is an absolute truth. Any and all offspring created by these couples must be created by using material provided by an outside source.

These couples have no need for birth control when interacting with each other, nor do they have to worry about the side effect of, or the long term health problems certain forms of birth control can cause. This is a considerable economic and health benefit to the same sex couple.

The lack of ability to procreate within the coupling has nothing to do with age, disability, fear or possible economic damage to the unit.

The second group, opposite sex couples must be concerned about procreation. Their interaction will often create a pregnancy. This pregnancy can cause health complications including death. Expensive steps most often times are required to not procreate in this group. Certain birth control methods have both immediate and long term health consequences. Others involve surgery. None of this applies to same sex couplings.

Should these couples find it difficult or impossible to procreate it is always due to injury, disability, age, fear of physical damage or economic damage to the unit.

The dynamics of these two groups, in this, the most basic need of success of the species, could not be more different.

How's that for a start

In other words, one group is gay, and the other isn't. That is what you are trying to justify singling out, right? I don't know why you don't just fly your bigot flag high. Why does the lack of the ability to procreate only matter for the homosexual couples? Is procreation important, or is heterosexual important? Which is the part that matters?

 

[Pop23]

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

Or if same sex couples accepted the fact that their couplings have never ever created a single human life and that makes their relationships incredibly different than opposite gender coupling

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

It would indeed be refreshing to get this out of the weeds.

A good start would be to agree that there are two distinct demographic groups, very different from each other within this discussion.

One group, same sex couples cannot procreate within the couple. This is an absolute truth. Any and all offspring created by these couples must be created by using material provided by an outside source.

These couples have no need for birth control when interacting with each other, nor do they have to worry about the side effect of, or the long term health problems certain forms of birth control can cause. This is a considerable economic and health benefit to the same sex couple.

The lack of ability to procreate within the coupling has nothing to do with age, disability, fear or possible economic damage to the unit.

The second group, opposite sex couples must be concerned about procreation. Their interaction will often create a pregnancy. This pregnancy can cause health complications including death. Expensive steps most often times are required to not procreate in this group. Certain birth control methods have both immediate and long term health consequences. Others involve surgery. None of this applies to same sex couplings.

Should these couples find it difficult or impossible to procreate it is always due to injury, disability, age, fear of physical damage or economic damage to the unit.

The dynamics of these two groups, in this, the most basic need of success of the species, could not be more different.

How's that for a start

In other words, one group is gay, and the other isn't. That is what you are trying to justify singling out, right? I don't know why you don't just fly your bigot flag high. Why does the lack of the ability to procreate only matter for the homosexual couples? Is procreation important, or is heterosexual important? Which is the part that matters?

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

 

[Pop23]

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race.

See this is the beauty of having court rulings as a matter of historical record. You get to go back,a and quote them directly:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'...."
Just so we're clear, that is not a commentary on race. That is a commentary on marriage. The ruling of Loving v Virginia was not limited to just questions of racial inequality, as much as you might with is was.

And the beauty of having historical records is that you can actually find facts.

Fact, prior to the ruling there were never a state sponsored same sex marriage. It's obvious then that the justices ruled that any such right existed for any male to marry any female.

That applies to gay as well as straights. Any male, gay or straight can marry any female, gay or straight.

 

[Czernobog]

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

So, you think gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, if they want to access the benefits of marriage? That is your position? And, by "pretend to be heterosexual", I mean marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

[Czernobog]

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race.

See this is the beauty of having court rulings as a matter of historical record. You get to go back,a and quote them directly:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'...."
Just so we're clear, that is not a commentary on race. That is a commentary on marriage. The ruling of Loving v Virginia was not limited to just questions of racial inequality, as much as you might with is was.

And the beauty of having historical records is that you can actually find facts.

Fact, prior to the ruling there were never a state sponsored same sex marriage. It's obvious then that the justices ruled that any such right existed for any male to marry any female.

That applies to gay as well as straights. Any male, gay or straight can marry any female, gay or straight.

First of all, that's not true. In fact, in several different States - notably California, and Hawaii - states were recognizing same sex marriages beginning in 1978, continuing right up until 1993, when you religious zealots caught wind of what was going on, shat yourselves, and ran off to your respective state legislators to "put a stop to that shit" in 31 different states.

Thanks for clarifying for everyone that not only are you ignorant of Constitution Law, but you're also ignorant of History.

 

[Plasmaball]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

its not a "slippery slope" it just should be. who i enter into a contract with shouldnt be your concern,

 

[Plasmaball]

Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.

You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.

btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.

First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.

Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.

Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.

Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.

There is a large difference like I explained.

There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.

His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.

There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"

No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.

And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).

they basically are...and using " new laws" is weak.

 

[bodecea]

The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.

So....you are saying Loving v Virginia is an invalid ruling?