The Left Loses Ground...

[Jroc]

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

You asked for a link and I provided it.

Say thank you.

"The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners,"
by Jodi R. R. Smith

That's it...dismiss everything else posted and focus on one small irrelevant detail. Transparent deflection.

The numbers don't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% or even the 10% claim made by Kinsey a gazillion years ago. It's irrelevant as to whether or not a minority is deserving of equal rights. Jews make up less than 2% of the US population...try applying all the anti gay laws marriage laws or the "religious freedom" laws to Jews.

it's not even only about Gay "marriage" it's about thought control with you people. Nothing is absolute anymore.are boys, boys? are girls, girls? should we remove those crazy men, women signs from public restrooms

No, it is about equal rights. "YOU PEOPLE" are just ignorant fucks.

Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids
From Why Marriage Matters: Appendix B

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids—and that's just at the federal level. Add in state and local law, and the policies of businesses, employers, universities, and other institutions, and it is clear that the denial of marriage to couples and their kids makes a substantial impact on every area of life, from raising kids, building a life together, and caring for one another, to retirement, death, and inheritance. Most of these cannot be secured by private agreement or through lawyers.

Here are just some of the ways in which government's denying the freedom to marry punishes couples and families by depriving them of critical tangible as well as intangible protections and responsibilities in virtually every area of life:

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

Civil unions do that...so how many sexes are there again?

 

[Jroc]

What about a heterosexual man who is cheating on his wife...should a "religious" store owner refuse to serve him?

That's moving the goalposts. You know better than that. Besides, how could the owner possibly know that?

It is not moving the goal posts...you right wing turds want to decide which "sins" you accept and which ones you reject. Which CLEARLY tells me it has NOTHING to do with "religion"...it has to do with prejudice, bias, discrimination and ignorance...a right wing trait.

HOW would a store owner know a person is gay?

They don't, which means your straw man is bullshit

 

[TemplarKormac]

HOW would a store owner know a person is gay?

Good question. How? They only way it is known is if they make it known. It would just be easy enough to stay quiet, that way nobody is offended and everyone gets what they want.

It is not moving the goal posts...you right wing turds want to decide which "sins" you accept and which ones you reject.

Yet anyone who opposes gay marriage is deemed a sinner in your book. You don't get to decide who decides what. You don't get to direct discourse anywhere, especially not with me. You would't dare say this to a Muslim, but hey, you can take stock in the fact that at least I won't kill you when or if you criticize my faith.

Which CLEARLY tells me it has NOTHING to do with "religion"...it has to do with prejudice, bias, discrimination and ignorance...a right wing trait.

Resorting to religious bigotry and ad hominem is a liberal trait. But then again, you don't mind it when Muslims do it. Why are Christians the target? They aren't the ones targeting homosexuals and murdering them.

There is bias and ignorance, and it's coming from you.

 

[Ame®icano]

Polls show that the will of the majority of We the People is in favor of same-sex marriage, PoliticalSpice.

Then why you need courts to legalize it? Why don't you simply put it to a vote?

Get back to when there are national referendums so that it can be put to the vote.

You know that Constitution can be amended, right?

If you have majority, as you're so sure you do, why don't you just go for it?

 

[Ame®icano]

Polls show that the will of the majority of We the People is in favor of same-sex marriage, PoliticalSpice.

Then why you need courts to legalize it? Why don't you simply put it to a vote?

Why do you need the courts to protect gun rights? Why not just let states and localities vote for what gun laws they want?

Gun rights are, just as institution of marriage, under constant attack from the left. I say, if you wanna take any of our constitutional rights, the way to do it is to change the constitution. Other than that, ANY law that even tries to do that, is invalid.

Lefties keep saying that they have majority for many things. If you do, you wouldn't be fighting the rights in courts, you would be removing them with amendments. So, go for it.

 

[Ame®icano]

The 2000 Census asked what question about gays? Oh, right...it didn't ask any. The 2010 asked about gay couples, not singles. The census does not ask if you are gay or straight.

Until everyone wakes up with a purple dot on their forehead indicating they've ever had a same sex wet dream, attraction or actual experience, you're never going to know.

Best guesses has it around 3.5-4% in the US. (More than Jews and Koreans)

How Many People are LGBT?

So....what's your quibble?

Clearly it isn't the 10%, or the 20% that many are pushing....

What does that have to do with the principle of forcing folks to participate in events that they find objectionable?

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

There's absolutely no statistical bases for an claim that homosexuals make up more than 2% of the population, so why do queers keep claiming higher numbers?

Once you believe in small lie of 10%, it easier to accept bigger lie of 20%.

It's like federal government claims they need to take our right away to protect us. First they came after our privacy, then after speech, then search an seizure, they keep coming for guns, they'll not give up untill they got them all...

 

[Ame®icano]

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'.

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

Marriage is already defined. What faggots are doing is redefining it.

"Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist." - Masha Gessen.

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

 

[Skylar]

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'.

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

Marriage is already defined. What faggots are doing is redefining it.

Marriage is a social construct. It is what we say it is. And in 37 of 50 states, it includes a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman. Same sex marraige doesn't actually effect you. It takes nothing from you. It injures you in no way. Its just plain irrelevant to your life.

Which boggles the mind as to why there's such emotional investment in opposing it.

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

Depends on the gay person, I suppose.

 

[Skylar]

Polls show that the will of the majority of We the People is in favor of same-sex marriage, PoliticalSpice.

Then why you need courts to legalize it? Why don't you simply put it to a vote?

Why do you need the courts to protect gun rights? Why not just let states and localities vote for what gun laws they want?

Gun rights are, just as institution of marriage, under constant attack from the left. I say, if you wanna take any of our constitutional rights, the way to do it is to change the constitution. Other than that, ANY law that even tries to do that, is invalid.

Lefties keep saying that they have majority for many things. If you do, you wouldn't be fighting the rights in courts, you would be removing them with amendments. So, go for it.

So Gallup is wrong on gay marriage support?

As for amendments, they require a 3/4 majority. And the people don't actually vote for them. They are voted on by the states. And why would need an amendment to protect rights?

 

[Ame®icano]

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

My laughter has reached uncontainable levels and my sides are now hurdling through the atmosphere at the light speed...

 

[Ame®icano]

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'.

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

Marriage is already defined. What faggots are doing is redefining it.

Marriage is a social construct. It is what we say it is. And in 37 of 50 states, it includes a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman. Same sex marraige doesn't actually effect you. It takes nothing from you. It injures you in no way. Its just plain irrelevant to your life.

Which boggles the mind as to why there's such emotional investment in opposing it.

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

Depends on the gay person, I suppose.

You suppose? Any clues why? Example maybe?

OK, lets try this way. Why they want to call it a marriage?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

I could say to be your equals but that's not true, since they are your betters.

 

[Ame®icano]

Polls show that the will of the majority of We the People is in favor of same-sex marriage, PoliticalSpice.

Then why you need courts to legalize it? Why don't you simply put it to a vote?

Why do you need the courts to protect gun rights? Why not just let states and localities vote for what gun laws they want?

Gun rights are, just as institution of marriage, under constant attack from the left. I say, if you wanna take any of our constitutional rights, the way to do it is to change the constitution. Other than that, ANY law that even tries to do that, is invalid.

Lefties keep saying that they have majority for many things. If you do, you wouldn't be fighting the rights in courts, you would be removing them with amendments. So, go for it.

So Gallup is wrong on gay marriage support?

As for amendments, they require a 3/4 majority. And the people don't actually vote for them. They are voted on by the states. And why would need an amendment to protect rights?

Aha. Rights are already protected. You lefties wanna take them away.

As I said, if Gallup is right, and if you think you have majority, amend the constitution. Oh, you can't... you don't have required majority... then STFU.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'.

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

Marriage is already defined. What faggots are doing is redefining it.

Marriage is a social construct. It is what we say it is. And in 37 of 50 states, it includes a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman. Same sex marraige doesn't actually effect you. It takes nothing from you. It injures you in no way. Its just plain irrelevant to your life.

Which boggles the mind as to why there's such emotional investment in opposing it.

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

Depends on the gay person, I suppose.

You suppose? Any clues why? Example maybe?

OK, lets try this way. Why they want to call it a marriage?

Same state-approved and issued contract, same name. Is that too tough for you? Tell me, does the lawyer charge less to dissolve the contract of one versus the other? Sure looks like the same rate to me. You seem to be hung up on on a word, like men vote and women advise? Doesn't work that way here where equal means equal, and the name is the same. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a contract, and that doesn't require that you be boy and girl...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Polls show that the will of the majority of We the People is in favor of same-sex marriage, PoliticalSpice.

Then why you need courts to legalize it? Why don't you simply put it to a vote?

Why do you need the courts to protect gun rights? Why not just let states and localities vote for what gun laws they want?

Gun rights are, just as institution of marriage, under constant attack from the left. I say, if you wanna take any of our constitutional rights, the way to do it is to change the constitution. Other than that, ANY law that even tries to do that, is invalid.

Lefties keep saying that they have majority for many things. If you do, you wouldn't be fighting the rights in courts, you would be removing them with amendments. So, go for it.

So Gallup is wrong on gay marriage support?

As for amendments, they require a 3/4 majority. And the people don't actually vote for them. They are voted on by the states. And why would need an amendment to protect rights?

Aha. Rights are already protected. You lefties wanna take them away.

As I said, if Gallup is right, and if you think you have majority, amend the constitution. Oh, you can't... you don't have required majority... then STFU.

Rights aren't up for a vote, and never should have been, either way. You want democracy, Mob Rule, not what we have here. Since marriage itself isn't in the Constitution there's no reason at all to go there, the courts are solving this issue as they should. That, like Equality, is in the Constitution.

 

[Ame®icano]

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

I could say to be your equals but that's not true, since they are your betters.

You keep shitting for the sake of shitting... and that's not new from you.

Why they would want to be equal to those who you think they're worse then they are?

 

[Ame®icano]

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

Marriage is already defined. What faggots are doing is redefining it.

Marriage is a social construct. It is what we say it is. And in 37 of 50 states, it includes a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman. Same sex marraige doesn't actually effect you. It takes nothing from you. It injures you in no way. Its just plain irrelevant to your life.

Which boggles the mind as to why there's such emotional investment in opposing it.

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

Depends on the gay person, I suppose.

You suppose? Any clues why? Example maybe?

OK, lets try this way. Why they want to call it a marriage?

Same state-approved and issued contract, same name. Is that too tough for you? Tell me, does the lawyer charge less to dissolve the contract of one versus the other? Sure looks like the same rate to me. You seem to be hung up on on a word, like men vote and women advise? Doesn't work that way here where equal means equal, and the name is the same. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a contract, and that doesn't require that you be boy and girl...

Marriage is a contract, I agree, but in between man and women. You wanna have it as contract in between some other combination, call it whatever you like, not marriage.

Now, if is what you say it is, then polygamy fall into the same category. If it doesn't require to be in between one man and one women, then why it require to be in between two, but not three or more?

Just as gender being protected class under the law, so is religion also is a protected class. So, why to change definition for one, and not for another? Gays have enough traction now and polygamists not?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

I could say to be your equals but that's not true, since they are your betters.

You keep shitting for the sake of shitting... and that's not new from you.

Why they would want to be equal to those who you think they're worse then they are?

They don't want to be equal, they are equal, they just haven't been treated that way by assholes like you. Got it now?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is a contract, I agree, but in between man and women.

While that is the tradition here, that is neither historically nor rationally valid. Marriage is a state-approved contract between two adults, period.

You hold a tradition, (marriage), higher than a principle, (equality), which is a grave error, one that the Supreme Court is shortly to rectify. Such a thing is long overdue...

 

[Ame®icano]

They don't want to be equal, they are equal, they just haven't been treated that way by assholes like you. Get it now?

They just want to force me to accept their version of "marriage" equal to mine. So why to change definition of marriage, why not just change definition of equal?

Btw, I know I am an asshole to lefties. That's kinda normal here. But you, you don't even know how stupid you are. Degenerate stupid.