The Homosexual Dilemma

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And Sodom fell
The Bible

Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".

Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities. They were a force of oppression. As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true. Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan. There's a link that can't be denied.

Amazing how Christians have so mangled the allegory in that story in order to bash gays...especially when the "hero" of the story, Lott, offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob, then he went and fucked those same daughters himself in the hills.

And gays get the bad rap out of that story.

Thanks for the reminder that the homosexual Canaanite culture was so decadent that offering up women as a commodity was a common way of settling differences. Oh, and by the way, Lots daughters got him drunk so they could have children by him. Yes the culture is that depraved when pervasive homosexuality becomes dominant. I'm glad we agree.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I strongly suspect this has been covered, but if marriage is only for reproduction, does that mean people over 50 or 60 can't get married?

And would that mean they're gay?

.

No Mac, it simply means they are anti gay bigots that wish to apply a standard to gays that they would not apply to heterosexuals. It seems like it's really them that want the "special rights" and aren't feeling so "special" because gays get them too.

Well, I think gays should have to suffer like the rest of us.



.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.

That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.

 

[ninja007]

By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?

Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.

Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.

This is my point. They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not. And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity. And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes. Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.

Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, relationships, family, sex, etc. Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?

That's ludicriously inconsistent.

You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality. And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.

thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.

Like Jews...

being a Jew isn't a choice.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.

Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.

You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.

Infertile couples still offer a mother father home for children to be adopted into and should therefore be given preference over any home that lacks a mother or a father. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And Sodom fell
The Bible

Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".

Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities. They were a force of oppression. As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true. Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan. There's a link that can't be denied.

Amazing how Christians have so mangled the allegory in that story in order to bash gays...especially when the "hero" of the story, Lott, offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob, then he went and fucked those same daughters himself in the hills.

And gays get the bad rap out of that story.

Thanks for the reminder that the homosexual Canaanite culture was so decadent that offering up women as a commodity was a common way of settling differences. Oh, and by the way, Lots daughters got him drunk so they could have children by him. Yes the culture is that depraved when pervasive homosexuality becomes dominant. I'm glad we agree.

Lots daughters fucking daddy was because of the faggots? You are reaching new heights of utter stupidity today little Christian.

 

[80zephyr]

Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.

No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.

Welcome to America, Bub.

That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.

If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.

And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.

Mark

 

[Seawytch]

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.

If that were true then my 90 year old grandfather would have been prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend. My sterilized brother would have been prevented from marrying his sterilized wife.

What doesn't change is the fact that you want to treat gay couples differently than straight couples. You want to set a standard for gays that you would not set for straights. That's discrimination and that makes you an anti gay bigot. It's okay, you've got company.

 

[ninja007]

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.

Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.

You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.

BS. Every (unbiased) study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.

Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.

You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.

Infertile couples still offer a mother father home for children to be adopted into and should therefore be given preference over any home that lacks a mother or a father. Why is this so hard to understand?

You really do live in Leave It To Beaver land.

Oh June, Wally is home...

 

[ninja007]

Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better

 

[Coyote]

Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.

Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

But I will, because it's pertinent.

Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.

No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater. It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...

 

[Skylar]

They are not arbitrary restrictions.

Obviously, they are. As there's no requirement of marriage that these restrictions serve. If for example every straight couple that couldn't have kids was prevented from marrying then applying similar restrictions to gays wouldn't be arbitrary. As the ability to procreate would be intrinsic to the union. But no one is required to meet such a standard. Rendering it essentially irrelevant to the union.

Thus, restricting someone's access to marriage because they can't meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one is the epitome of arbitrary.

Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.

But why? You can't give us a logical or rational reason, as the children of same sex couples are as healthy and well adjusted as from straight couples. Yet you imagine harm for which no evidence actually exists....because you believe homosexuality is wrong. This is the problem with your entire argument; you have no rational basis. You have a belief based in your religion but lacking any objective rational or logical reason. For someone who doesn't share the same religious beliefs, your claims are essentially gibberish.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

That's between each individual and God. You don't play any role in that. Rendering your attempts to impose your religion upon people that don't believe it a little pointless.

 

[Seawytch]

Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.

No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.

Welcome to America, Bub.

That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.

If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.

And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.

Mark

Are you aware that your argument was used before?

As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

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." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

But I will, because it's pertinent.

Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.

Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is? Morons here, total fucking morons.

 

[Coyote]

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest? Oh, we don't have one. Well, that's into the can then.

And stop signing your name. It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is. This isn't a letter to mommy.

The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.

Might as well call a man and a tree married. It won't make them so.

And BTW, the state has no "compelling interest" to limiting marriage to just two people.

Oh, by the way, my name is...

Mark

Marriage is not biological law. It's a human construct.

 

[Seawytch]

Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better

I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.

 

[ninja007]

BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.

No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater. It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No it does not, and few would argue it does. Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive. Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.

What is the right in question? It's the right to marry.

Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry? It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry. What kind of nonsense is that? No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want. And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.