The Homosexual Dilemma

[kaz]

And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.

If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.

I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances. However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them. Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.

Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.

And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.

Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.

You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Third most delusional statement of the day: "I see, so it's about the $$$. Gays don't feel valued unless they are paid for it."

 

[JakeStarkey]

]You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.

I think SCOTUS and the American people differ.

 

[Syriusly]

And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.

If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.

I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances. However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them. Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.

Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.

And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.

Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.

You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.

Shelley v. Kraemer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

1. It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.

People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.

UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong

Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.

‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.

‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’
​

2. Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com

There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.

Tebow's action of praying got media attention. However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed. For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field. Tebow also had high school accomplishments. You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.

You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.

Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.

5. Define equal. It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.

Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage. They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.

Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.

Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.

There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.

Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.

Mark

There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".

Yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy... however, that fallacy only exists where the appeal is to a slippery slope that does not exist.

The Slope relevant to the Normalizing of Sexual Abnormality is steep and makes wet ice look like a well treated drag strip (They're covered in adhesive, thus incredibly sticky.)

Remember, in the 80s when the "Movement" was really getting traction, in public debate after debate, the advocates proclaimed that 'it was ludicrous to claim that if the US Culture just accepted the individual homosexuals and dropped the sodomy laws, that homosexuals would inevitably demand to be married; declaring THEN that the claim that such was inevitable was 'a slippery slope fallacy'.

Again... the facts demonstrate that the slope is steep and greasy, thus it is foolish to even consider going down it.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy... however, that fallacy only exists where the appeal is to a slippery slope that does not exist.

Your argument has one huge hole: you can't establish causation. You insist that no culture that has embraced homosexuality has survived. Yet virtually no culture that has rejected homosexuality has survived either. When your 'effect' exists even if your 'cause' doesn't....clearly you need to work on your causation.

Again... the facts demonstrate that the slope is steep and greasy, thus it is foolish to even consider going down it.

If facts were 'whatever you imagine', then perhaps. Alas, reality doesn't work that way. And your assumptions don't translate into our concern.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD cup coffee, you name it. Really.

Don't hold your breath...

The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it. Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.

It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

 

[80zephyr]

Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either. Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice. No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.

There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?

And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.

I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.

Mark

 

[kaz]

]You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.

I think SCOTUS and the American people differ.

You don't know what the Constitution is, Jake. Read it.

 

[kaz]

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.

If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.

I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances. However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them. Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.

Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.

And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.

Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.

You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.

Shelley v. Kraemer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, that was made up law by the courts.

 

[kaz]

Don't hold your breath...

The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it. Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.

It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation. What was I thinking? "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one. That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz, you are making up something out of nothing.

Believe as you will, it certainly is your right even as you are wrong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either. Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice. No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.

There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?

And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.

I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.

Mark

Oh, it gets MUCH worse than that.

"Consenting Adult"... means what?

It means a person who is, at least of the age set into law to be capable of consenting... . A "Consenting Adult" could by a simple alteration of "The Law" represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or 'any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'.

Prior to just a few years ago, the Militant-homo lobby, OKA: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality would without fail respond to allegations that homosexuals are prone toward the pursuit of sexual gratification with children, with OUTRAGE! When pushed to explain the basis fo their outrage, they would respond with some variation on the "Its SICK!" theme.... Then, it morphed into "It's ILLEGAL!"

Pedophilia is in fact illegal... it's also SICK; meaning that it is a function of a disordered, dysfunctional mind, but no less so than the disorder that induces the rationalization that sex with people of one's own gender. It is precisely the same thing. And the goal of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is to rinse from the culture, any sense of sexual propriety. And all through the APPEAL TO MISLEADING AUTHORITY wherein the same people that 'informed' us that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, are now 'informing us' that "there are no lasting effects from sex with an adult, where the encounter is expressed through a loving, caring perspective."

They're steadily 'progressing' toward the lowering of the legal age of sexual consent, until there is no standard.

Just as they're moving to lower the standard for marriage.

So, yes... it is a terrible, slippery slope.

But it's evil, and such is the nature of evil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following is a type of foolery known by "as if la la logic": A 'Consenting Adult' could by a simple alteration of 'The Law' represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or 'any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'."

This is a make believe concoction that does not exist except as the fulmination of weak brain in a foolish person. This fantasy derives from feeling not objective evidence or solid logic.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation. What was I thinking? "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one. That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.

Marriage is open to everyone.

I've been married to my wife for 35 years. And if the government came out tonight and decreed that marriage was the joining of a Monkey and a football... it would not change our life in the slightest. We would remain married, as our marriage is before God, in sync with nature and is between the two of us.

Two men pretending to be married does not directly affect us, or our marriage. But indirectly, it strips the culture in which we live, of the nucleus that bonds it... . While OUR marriage is set in stone, allowing people of the same gender to marry MUST effect the way that future generations will perceive marriage.

And given the negative effect that Leftist reasoning has already had on Marriage and as a consequence of THAT, on the culture, it follows that further degeneration of the cultural nucleus would only further degeneration the culture.

The Ideological Left, or more accurately, our tolerance of the idiocy that IS the Ideological Left, has long crippled our culture. And I could list the damage that their reasoning has caused, but we all know what it is... that we have tolerated their nonsense all these years, does not obligate us toward further tolerance... and you can rest assured that on this issue... we are not inclined to compromise.

There are any number of alternatives for the Sexually abnormal to play house... Marriage is just not one of them.

Because: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation. What was I thinking? "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one. That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.

Marriage is open to everyone.

I've been married to my wife for 35 years. And if the government came out tonight and decreed that marriage was the joining of a Monkey and a football... it would not change our life in the slightest. We would remain married, as our marriage is before God, in sync with nature and is between the two of us.

Two men pretending to be married does not directly affect us, or our marriage. But indirectly, it strips the culture in which we live, of the nucleus that bonds it... . While OUR marriage is set in stone, allowing people of the same gender to marry MUST effect the way that future generations will perceive marriage.

And given the negative effect that Leftist reasoning has already had on Marriage and as a consequence of THAT, on the culture, it follows that further degeneration of the cultural nucleus would only further degeneration the culture.

The Ideological Left, or more accurately, our tolerance of the idiocy that IS the Ideological Left, has long crippled our culture. And I could list the damage that their reasoning has caused, but we all know what it is... that we have tolerated their nonsense all these years, does not obligate us toward further tolerance... and you can rest assured that on this issue... we are not inclined to compromise.

There are any number of alternatives for the Sexually abnormal to play house... Marriage is just not one of them.

Because: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Got some news for you, this isn't Jesusland, yet, and you've lost so now what, you just keep bitching?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize that, as NONSENSE!

Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation. What was I thinking? "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one. That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.

Marriage is open to everyone.

I've been married to my wife for 35 years. And if the government came out tonight and decreed that marriage was the joining of a Monkey and a football... it would not change our life in the slightest. We would remain married, as our marriage is before God, in sync with nature and is between the two of us.

Two men pretending to be married does not directly affect us, or our marriage. But indirectly, it strips the culture in which we live, of the nucleus that bonds it... . While OUR marriage is set in stone, allowing people of the same gender to marry MUST effect the way that future generations will perceive marriage.

And given the negative effect that Leftist reasoning has already had on Marriage and as a consequence of THAT, on the culture, it follows that further degeneration of the cultural nucleus would only further degeneration the culture.

The Ideological Left, or more accurately, our tolerance of the idiocy that IS the Ideological Left, has long crippled our culture. And I could list the damage that their reasoning has caused, but we all know what it is... that we have tolerated their nonsense all these years, does not obligate us toward further tolerance... and you can rest assured that on this issue... we are not inclined to compromise.

There are any number of alternatives for the Sexually abnormal to play house... Marriage is just not one of them.

Because: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Got some news for you, this isn't Jesusland, yet, and you've lost so now what, you just keep bitching?

ROFLMNAO!

"We'll scratch your eyes out!"

Adorable!

 

[Coyote]

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry.

Those are retarded examples. SURELY you can see the that?

 

[Coyote]

Don't hold your breath...

The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it. Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.

It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

I see, so it's about the $$$.

Why do you think it's about money? "privledges and legal benefits" =/= money. They include such simple things as the right to be with a dying spouse in a hospital.

[quote[ Gays don't feel valued unless they are paid for it.[/quote]

Where did you come up with that?

It's sad when you look at the history of oppression in the world what liberals think makes life unbearable and not worth living. They are soft and weak.

Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.

All government marriage is wrong. Government should not treat any citizens differently. The "previleges and legal benefits" should be open to all Americans, not just "couples."

Ok. I can go along with that a well.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.