Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Skylar]

Homosexuals should not marry.

Sure they should! And more importantly....are.

They want children.

Some of them. In my experience gays and lesbians make better parents on average than straights. Nothing intrinsic....there just aren't many accidents with gay and lesbian conceptions. The children are almost always coming into homes where they are wanted and well prepared for.

For straight couples, its a bit of a mixed bag. Lots of homes where parents are well prepared, emotionally and financially. And enough dumb teenagers getting knocking up or getting some girl pregnant to man a fleet of battleships. Women getting pregnant to keep men, men refusing to wear condoms because they think it feels better. And boatloads of alcohol...that I swear was invented to keep our species reproducing.

They should not be allowed to procreate, if such are unwilling to engage in marriage to the opposite sex.

Of course they should. And again....are!

Homosexuals may choose to live together, but their union is not a marriage.

The law says otherwise. You have every right to disagree. And the gays have every right to not give a fiddler's fuck what you think as they're handed their marriage licenses.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[Skylar]

Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity.

You seem to be claiming some pretty specific knowledge of gay sex. Something you want to tell us?

 

[Czernobog]

Case in point. The cowardly bigot refuses to simply answer the question, because he knows that answering honestly proves that he has no respect for the institution of marriage.

Um, no.

He has answered it over and over, and in no way is it bigoted. It is in fact the utmost in respect for the institution of marriage.

No, he didn't he equivocated over, and over, so that he could not be held accountable for his position. There's a difference.
See, I believe that a homosexual should not be required to marry someone of the opposite sex.

See, that is answering the question. Pop pointedly refused to answer the direct question. He implied the answer. He danced around the answer. He allowed me to assume the answer. But, he never actually answered. All he has to do is answer the question as plainly as I just did.

Listen F. Lee Bailey jr.

Play your little games all you want. This is how you roll, I don't care!

Gays could always marry

Males marry females

You don't get CLEARER then that!

Okay. Then we're going to just assume that you are answering "yes", to all of those requests to answer myt question.

So, your position is that homosexuals should be forced to marry people of the opposite sex.

Next question. Do you agree that homosexuals, by nature of the fact that they are homosexuals, find their romantic, and sexual satisfaction in members of the same sex?

Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity. It exalts materialism with abandon, and casts aside spirituality to embrace temporal pleasure --- void of the complication of a pregnancy. Sexual experimentation leads to fornication. At its worst, self gratification leads to encounters with both male and female partners. Homosexuality can begin with extramarital adulterous encounters. Pornography, self gratification, fornication, adultery ---- lead down the corruption ladder. The younger person can be initiated by a "mature" sexual predator with promises of care and friendship. The "victim" can harbor feeling of rejection by the opposite sex, or covets the seeming prowess of others of his sex -- seeing sexual humiliation/conquest as a power play game. The reality is that none of this is the ideal of marriage. It reflects the total opposite of what God intended for Adam and Eve.

Okay...I'm not even bothering with any kind of actual response to your blathering other than to let you know that I am an atheist. So, whenever you start a legal argument with "debauchery", "lustful and dark desires of the flesh", "eternity", "God", and "Adam and Eve", you have already wasted your breath. First, you are appealing to an authority I do not recognize. Second, and more importantly, the Constitution forbids, thankfully, anyone from enacting laws based on their religious beliefs.

Moving on...

 

[Boss]

Really? So you don't know about the 52 votes in the House of Representatives to repeals Obamacare. Trust me when I tell you that Ted Cruz ws most assuredly not the only vote in favvor of that stupidity. I can get you the congressional vote rolls, if you need reminding.

I know Obamacare has never been in danger of being repealed by the current GOP in congress.

Actually, I've said several times that I would be all in favor of doing away with the concept of marriage outside of church, for everyone. I have said repeatedly, good luck getting Christians to give up on their government recognized marriages. But, hey! If you can pull that off, I'm all with ya. I'm just not willing to have one kind of contract recognized for heterosexuals, and a different kind recognized for homosexuals.

My solution doesn't demand Christians give up anything. Your fears of one kind of deal for homos and another for heteros is unwarranted because of the Constitution. The government can't even demand you reveal the nature of your sexuality. How could they decide which kind of contract?

Now you say... "good luck getting Christians on board with that!" But Christians certainly aren't on board with what you propose, and never will be. My solution allows religion to keep religious sanctity of traditional marriage. That's what they get out of the deal, which is what they claim to want.

Will every Christian embrace my solution? No, just like every gay marriage advocate won't accept it. Some people had rather keep the issue alive for political reasons as opposed to resolving the problem. My solution resolves the problem forever, and gives all sides what they claim to want.

See previous response. And by the way, I don't see any actual Republican politicians making that suggestion. I only point that out because, your contention was that Liberals "created" this "polarizing" issue. However, the fact is, it wasn't even an issue until Conservatives started shitting themselves that "those damned fags are daring to get married!" In other words, Conservatives created this issue.

And, by the way, you are "those guys". When you start throwing accusations at "liberals", you self-identify, by your position, the opposition, which makes you "those guys". By identifying with "those guys", you accept responsibility for the actions "those guys" take in your name. If you don't want to be "those guys", then don't identifying with them. Guess what? You "lump me" in with Progressives, I'm not gonna flinch. I side with Progressives, so, I expect to be "lumped in" with them.

Liberals DID create this polarizing issue, just like all other polarizing social issues. It's what they do. When I said I wasn't "one of them" I was referring to Republicans. I am a Conservative and totally opposed to Liberalism. I sometimes vote Republican, but I've also voted for Democrats, Libertarians and Independents. You would be ill-advised to ever lump me in with any group. I'm a free-thinking maverick who doesn't tow the party line like you and your liberal religionists. I'm also not responsible for what politicians do "in my name."

 

[LittleNipper]

Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity. It exalts materialism with abandon, and casts aside spirituality to embrace temporal pleasure --- void of the complication of a pregnancy. Sexual experimentation leads to fornication. At its worst, self gratification leads to encounters with both male and female partners. Homosexuality can begin with extramarital adulterous encounters. Pornography, self gratification, fornication, adultery ---- lead down the corruption ladder. The younger person can be initiated by a "mature" sexual predator with promises of care and friendship. The "victim" can harbor feeling of rejection by the opposite sex, or covets the seeming prowess of others of his sex -- seeing sexual humiliation/conquest as a power play game. The reality is that none of this is the ideal of marriage. It reflects the total opposite of what God intended for Adam and Eve.

Okay...I'm not even bothering with any kind of actual response to your blathering other than to let you know that I am an atheist. So, whenever you start a legal argument with "debauchery", "lustful and dark desires of the flesh", "eternity", "God", and "Adam and Eve", you have already wasted your breath. First, you are appealing to an authority I do not recognize. Second, and more importantly, the Constitution forbids, thankfully, anyone from enacting laws based on their religious beliefs.

Moving on...

The logic then (since you are an atheist) is that marriage has nothing to do with you. Don't waste the time of everyone trying to persuade them that "gay marriage" is ok. Marriage is only legitimate if there exists a God, otherwise it serves no purpose since it would only be a show. The Constitution forbids the Federal Government from making laws that get in the way of religions freedom and not to free anyone from religious conflict/discussion/confrontations. This is where our government has gotten off track. They are trying to teach people what to think, because they actually are beginning to believe that what they believe doesn't constitute religious fervor ---but "political" values. And this is why a Mayor in Houston Texas sees nothing wrong with seeking transcripts of sermons from clergy he feels are "Anti Gay." But would think it horrible if a Conservative wanted the transcripts of clergy who promoted "gay marriage," or if clergy sought transcripts of behind door meetings the mayor held on public property.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Constitution forbids the Federal Government from making laws that get in the way of religions freedom...

So you think the Federal government should have always recognized same-sex marriages that were conducted in Churches right? You support the equal treatment of those couples Religious Marriages?


>>>>

 

[ShackledNation]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.

So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling.

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth.

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

 

[ShackledNation]

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

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?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

 

[Pop23]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.

So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling.

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth.

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

 

[Pop23]

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

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?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

There were zero same sex marriages prior to Loving. The court would never have considered that in their findings.

 

[ShackledNation]

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

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?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

There were zero same sex marriages prior to Loving. The court would never have considered that in their findings.

Irrelevant to the point. Loving still declared marriage a fundamental human right. It extended only to interracial marriage because that was the question at hand. If you understood how the courts function, this wouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

 

[ShackledNation]

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.

So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling.

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth.

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

 

[Czernobog]

Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity. It exalts materialism with abandon, and casts aside spirituality to embrace temporal pleasure --- void of the complication of a pregnancy. Sexual experimentation leads to fornication. At its worst, self gratification leads to encounters with both male and female partners. Homosexuality can begin with extramarital adulterous encounters. Pornography, self gratification, fornication, adultery ---- lead down the corruption ladder. The younger person can be initiated by a "mature" sexual predator with promises of care and friendship. The "victim" can harbor feeling of rejection by the opposite sex, or covets the seeming prowess of others of his sex -- seeing sexual humiliation/conquest as a power play game. The reality is that none of this is the ideal of marriage. It reflects the total opposite of what God intended for Adam and Eve.

Okay...I'm not even bothering with any kind of actual response to your blathering other than to let you know that I am an atheist. So, whenever you start a legal argument with "debauchery", "lustful and dark desires of the flesh", "eternity", "God", and "Adam and Eve", you have already wasted your breath. First, you are appealing to an authority I do not recognize. Second, and more importantly, the Constitution forbids, thankfully, anyone from enacting laws based on their religious beliefs.

Moving on...

The logic then (since you are an atheist) is that marriage has nothing to do with you.

Uh...you are confusing the civil contract of marriage, which has everything to do with me, and my partner, and the religious ritual of a religious wedding, which I don't think homosexuals are demanding.

The rest of your post is just more moralistic tripe borne out of your belief in your particular myth. You are, of course, entitled to your moralistic views. I will simply not allow you to try to legislate my personal behavior based on those views.

 

[Pop23]

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.

So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling.

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth.

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

 

[Pop23]

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

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?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

There were zero same sex marriages prior to Loving. The court would never have considered that in their findings.

Irrelevant to the point. Loving still declared marriage a fundamental human right. It extended only to interracial marriage because that was the question at hand. If you understood how the courts function, this wouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

The court could not have ruled on something non existent at the time.

Your argument is simply goofy

 

[LittleNipper]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........


This is simply not true. We have various Biblical characters who had children, even though called infertile and even though called old. Homosexual relations cannot produce children. There is no Biblical reference to any homosexual relationship producing a child. As a society, we should promote healthy nurturing relationships and not sexual experimentation as the only wholesome bases for marriage.

Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.

So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling.

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth.

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity.”

As already noted, this is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – indeed, this is an example of the ignorance and hate that the Constitution prohibits from being codified.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LittleNipper said: ↑

"The Constitution forbids the Federal Government from making laws that get in the way of religions freedom..."

This doesn't make any sense.

The issue concerns state measures that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, having nothing to do with Federal laws, laws that don't even exist.

 

[TrueMan]

People who engage in sexual activity with the same sex are more at risk to catch STD, HIV or AIDS than those who are straight. And not only because of these things I won't ever support homosexual marriages.

 

[Seawytch]

People who engage in sexual activity with the same sex are more at risk to catch STD, HIV or AIDS than those who are straight. And not only because of these things I won't ever support homosexual marriages.

People who engage in risky unprotected sex are more at risk for STDs, including HIV. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it, bigot.