The Left Loses Ground...

[Ame®icano]

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

I'm to lazy to fix your quotes...

Can you cite the law where it says that? Two adults, you say... How about mom and daughter, both adult and daughter is over 21?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

I'm to lazy to fix your quotes...

Can you cite the law where it says that? Two adults, you say... How about mom and daughter, both adult and of age of consent?

Any two adults is the only way for people to be equal. Since the "ick" factor is still at work the law has some catching up to do. You can, almost, make a compelling state interest argument against incestuous marriage, but not gay marriage, meaning, you're fucked...

 

[Ame®icano]

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

I'm to lazy to fix your quotes...

Can you cite the law where it says that? Two adults, you say... How about mom and daughter, both adult and of age of consent?

Any two adults is the only way for people to be equal. Since the "ick" factor is still at work the law has some catching up to do. You can, almost, make a compelling state interest argument against incestuous marriage, but not gay marriage, meaning, you're fucked...

Have I mentioned incest anywhere? Nope, you just imagined it, since I mentioned mother and daughter. Who said they have to have sex? They love each other, unconditionally. Why they can't just marry each other? Its all about two adults that love each other, right?

P.S. It's you who is fucked by thinking about those naughty things...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Their marriages, their lives, their value to society is all equal to yours, and likely greater. No change in terminology is necessary just because you want to continue to be the top dog. When the ******* and the panties were allowed to vote, we called it voting. We didn't have to change the name we just had to tell you, as in this case, to fucking man-up and stop being such a whiny pussy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

I'm to lazy to fix your quotes...

Can you cite the law where it says that? Two adults, you say... How about mom and daughter, both adult and of age of consent?

Any two adults is the only way for people to be equal. Since the "ick" factor is still at work the law has some catching up to do. You can, almost, make a compelling state interest argument against incestuous marriage, but not gay marriage, meaning, you're fucked...

Have I mentioned incest anywhere? Nope, you just imagined it, since I mentioned mother and daughter. Who said they have to have sex? They love each other, unconditionally. Why they can't just marry each other? Its all about two adults that love each other, right?

P.S. It's you who is fucked by thinking about those naughty things...

A mother and daughter marrying each other would always be an incestuous marriage you dumbass, whether they fucked each other or not. It's based upon the relationship, not the sex life.

 

[Ame®icano]

Their marriages, their lives, their value to society is all equal to yours, and likely greater. No change in terminology is necessary just because you want to continue to be the top dog. When the ******* and the panties were allowed to vote, we called it voting. We didn't have to change the name we just had to tell you, as in this case, to fucking man-up and stop being a whiny pussy.

On the contrary, we're not ones that are whining, you lefties are. As always, you coveting for what we got. You cant make it on your own, take it from us. You can't have marriage like ours, take ours away. You're never happy with what you got, you always want more from us. And what we resist, you call us all the names you call us racists, bigots, and what else not... We know your game.

 

[Ame®icano]

A mother and daughter marrying each other would always be an incestuous marriage you dumbass, whether they fucked each other or not. It's based upon the relationship, not the sex life.

Really? So tell me fucktard, if you just love your mom, you're committing incest?

Without sex there wouldn't be incest. It's based primarily on sexual intercourse in between close relatives.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Their marriages, their lives, their value to society is all equal to yours, and likely greater. No change in terminology is necessary just because you want to continue to be the top dog. When the ******* and the panties were allowed to vote, we called it voting. We didn't have to change the name we just had to tell you, as in this case, to fucking man-up and stop being a whiny pussy.

On the contrary, we're not ones that are whining, you lefties are. As always, you coveting for what we got. You cant make it on your own, take it from us. You can't have marriage like ours, take ours away. You're never happy with what you got, you always want more from us. And what we resist, you call us all the names you call us racists, bigots, and what else not... We know your game.

Your dogma doesn't hunt. Save it next time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A mother and daughter marrying each other would always be an incestuous marriage you dumbass, whether they fucked each other or not. It's based upon the relationship, not the sex life.

Really? So tell me fucktard, if you just love your mom, you're committing incest?

Without sex there wouldn't be incest. It's based primarily on sexual intercourse in between close relatives.

If I marry her, dumbass, it's an incestuous marriage, whether we fuck or not. Look it up.

New York appeals court unanimously OKs some incestuous marriages News LifeSite

Notice, idiot, that it doesn't discuss fucking, just the marriage.

 

[Ame®icano]

A mother and daughter marrying each other would always be an incestuous marriage you dumbass, whether they fucked each other or not. It's based upon the relationship, not the sex life.

Really? So tell me fucktard, if you just love your mom, you're committing incest?

Without sex there wouldn't be incest. It's based primarily on sexual intercourse in between close relatives.

If I marry her, dumbass, it's an incestuous marriage, whether we fuck or not. Look it up.

New York appeals court unanimously OKs some incestuous marriages News LifeSite

Notice, idiot, that it doesn't discuss fucking, just the marriage.

Notice, stupid, from your own link: "Since it is legal in New York for first cousins to marry, the judge concluded that this marriage was legal". Meaning, per New York laws, court decided that their marriage is not incestuous. Second...

The court found that the marriage between 34-year-old Huyen Nuguyen of Vietnam and her 38-year-old husband, Vu Truong, of Rochester, N.Y., is not incestuous under New York's Domestic Relations Law. The court said the marriage posed about the same genetic risk of birth defects as marriages between first cousins, which are legal in New York.

Third, do I need to remind you why law is forbidding marriage in between relatives? Solely to prevent birth defects. They happen when relatives are fucking. So, if there is no fucking, why would law discriminate against marriages like that? Come on Einstein, lighten me up.

 

[Skylar]

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?

You're asking me to speak for all gays? I don't know them all. You're gonna have to ask them.

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

Because it is marriage? There's clearly a point you're going for. Why don't you just skip to that.

 

[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?

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

Marriage is a right. If gays are being denied it, then clearly their rights aren't be protected.

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.

Nope. As an amendment isn't the minimum threshold of protecting rights. The majority the people clearly back gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

I get that you feel that way. So? Our laws aren't based on your personal beliefs of what a marriage should constitute.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Our laws aren't based on your personal beliefs of what a marriage should constitute.

Then why should they be based on yours?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The majority the people clearly back gay marriage.

And? Do the majority of people get to define what marriage is to the minority? Isn't the whole thing not defining marriage for anyone?

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

No, the don't...

What Is Marriage?

Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.

What Is a Civil Union?

A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united.

What Are the Differences between Marriage and Civil Unions?

There are significant differences between the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions. People who are married usually enjoy more benefits than those in civil unions, including:

Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
Tax benefits available to married couples only
Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance

- See more at: Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library

 

[TemplarKormac]

Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government.

There's the problem right there. Government should not be defining it at all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And if a gay couple truly wanted to marry for "love" then why the talk of "benefits?" I thought people married each other for love, not cash and prizes.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

False argument. I am straight and I am a Christian. Yet I was taught WE ARE ALL sinners. But you folks want to decide what sins are acceptable.

It is really very simple. No one is asking you to embrace homosexuality. Just respect their civil rights.

 

[Skylar]

Our laws aren't based on your personal beliefs of what a marriage should constitute.

Then why should they be based on yours?

Who says they are?