The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Syriusly]

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

That really goes against the idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right as well though - what right does the state have to deny a marriage (now a protected right) to siblings as well?.

'idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right'- Marriage is a right of all Americans.

States can only deny that right with a compelling interest.

The Supreme Court has overturned State laws 4 times now based upon that concept

• Bans on Mixed Race marriages
• Bans on marriages if parents owe child support
• Bans on inmates marrying
• Bans on same gender marriage.

4 times- 4 very different cases- but in each case the State was asked to provide a compelling reason to deny that right to the persons who wanted to marry.

So as I keep saying- You either have an argument against Sibling marriage or you don't.

If your only argument was they shouldn't have children together- then States could allow them to marry once they prove that they cannot have children together as some states allow First Cousins to marry now.

So you need another argument- and if you don't have that argument- then you didn't have that argument 2 weeks ago either.

....

You are talking to two different posters here. I commented on your conversation with pop because I think that there is a logical problem with the mentioned situation but I do not support his stances on marriage. I do not have an argument for siblings to not marry (as I clearly pointed out) as I actually support that marriage being legally recognized.

Thanks for the clarification.

The same arguments- or lack of arguments regarding sibling marriage- apply today just as they did two weeks ago, just as they applied after each and every other Supreme Court decision regarding marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

That really goes against the idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right as well though - what right does the state have to deny a marriage (now a protected right) to siblings as well?.

'idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right'- Marriage is a right of all Americans.

States can only deny that right with a compelling interest.

The Supreme Court has overturned State laws 4 times now based upon that concept

• Bans on Mixed Race marriages
• Bans on marriages if parents owe child support
• Bans on inmates marrying
• Bans on same gender marriage.

4 times- 4 very different cases- but in each case the State was asked to provide a compelling reason to deny that right to the persons who wanted to marry.

So as I keep saying- You either have an argument against Sibling marriage or you don't.

If your only argument was they shouldn't have children together- then States could allow them to marry once they prove that they cannot have children together as some states allow First Cousins to marry now.

So you need another argument- and if you don't have that argument- then you didn't have that argument 2 weeks ago either.

WHY PARSE "Marriage"? GOD created MAN and WOMAN to be with each other for procreation. GOD was very specific. The SCOTUS is WAYOUT of line...and those that agree with the decision including the "Justices" will have some heavy explaining to do before they are sent to where they belong by the ONE that made the original LAWS OF NATURE that out Founders acknowledged, and BUILT this Republic upon.

Learn it, Live it KNOW IT.

I don't give a damn frankly what you think "God" did.

And there is no "law of nature".

 

[Syriusly]

The OP's original conceit is flawed. I am agnostic, by the way. I don't believe homosexuality is comparable to Heterosexuality. The concept of "GAY rights" implies that gays are being denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they can love anyone they want, they can live anywhere they want, vote, drive etc... I think a lot of people buy that gay agenda logic that says gays MUST be allowed to marry in the name of EQUALITY. There is an underlying dream logic to this, backed up with opinions and presumptions, that some of us just wont accept until it is logically explained. The first conceit is that Heterosexuality IS exactly the same as Homosexuality, and how people came to that conclusion. I am not seeing this jump in logic.

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

 

[The T]

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

Then *EXPLAIN* your fucking existence. Care to? LAWS of GOD and Nature TRUMP man's LAW. Learn it, Live it, KNOW IT. NOTHING YOU can do about it but whine like a pansy.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

That really goes against the idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right as well though - what right does the state have to deny a marriage (now a protected right) to siblings as well?.

'idea that marriage is a sacred and protected right'- Marriage is a right of all Americans.

States can only deny that right with a compelling interest.

The Supreme Court has overturned State laws 4 times now based upon that concept

• Bans on Mixed Race marriages
• Bans on marriages if parents owe child support
• Bans on inmates marrying
• Bans on same gender marriage.

4 times- 4 very different cases- but in each case the State was asked to provide a compelling reason to deny that right to the persons who wanted to marry.

So as I keep saying- You either have an argument against Sibling marriage or you don't.

If your only argument was they shouldn't have children together- then States could allow them to marry once they prove that they cannot have children together as some states allow First Cousins to marry now.

So you need another argument- and if you don't have that argument- then you didn't have that argument 2 weeks ago either.

WHY PARSE "Marriage"? GOD created MAN and WOMAN to be with each other for procreation. GOD was very specific. The SCOTUS is WAYOUT of line...and those that agree with the decision including the "Justices" will have some heavy explaining to do before they are sent to where they belong by the ONE that made the original LAWS OF NATURE that out Founders acknowledged, and BUILT this Republic upon.

Learn it, Live it KNOW IT.

I don't give a damn frankly what you think "God" did.

And there is no "law of nature".

 

[FA_Q2]

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

They are, for the most part, simply acknowledging the reality made with this decision and recent legal moves that make marriage a right. I agree with the idea and implementation but I also believe that it must be followed to its conclusion. It is hypocritical to demand that the right must be protected for gay couples and then suddenly support other couples being barred from marriage.

Marriage has been a right all along- the courts recognized that right about 80 years ago.

This is the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned State laws based upon that right of marriage.

The hypocrisy comes from those on the right- who oppose same gender marriage- suddenly arguing on behalf of sibling marriage and polygamy- even though they actually don't support any of them.

Irrelevant. Hypocritical behavior by one side does not negate hypocritical behavior on another.

When marriage became a right is also irrelevant - there is literally no argument left for marriage to be denied for virtually anything. 2 weeks ago you COULD have mounted a procreation/family argument even if it was wrong (it really was the last bastion of those that want government to control marriage) but that is now no longer an option.

 

[FA_Q2]

The OP's original conceit is flawed. I am agnostic, by the way. I don't believe homosexuality is comparable to Heterosexuality. The concept of "GAY rights" implies that gays are being denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they can love anyone they want, they can live anywhere they want, vote, drive etc... I think a lot of people buy that gay agenda logic that says gays MUST be allowed to marry in the name of EQUALITY. There is an underlying dream logic to this, backed up with opinions and presumptions, that some of us just wont accept until it is logically explained. The first conceit is that Heterosexuality IS exactly the same as Homosexuality, and how people came to that conclusion. I am not seeing this jump in logic.

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

Why do they have to equate?

I don't think that anyone thinks gay and straight are the same - that is why they have two different words that describe them. They don't have to equate to each other to recognize that they all have access to the same rights.

 

[MaryL]

The OP's original conceit is flawed. I am agnostic, by the way. I don't believe homosexuality is comparable to Heterosexuality. The concept of "GAY rights" implies that gays are being denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they can love anyone they want, they can live anywhere they want, vote, drive etc... I think a lot of people buy that gay agenda logic that says gays MUST be allowed to marry in the name of EQUALITY. There is an underlying dream logic to this, backed up with opinions and presumptions, that some of us just wont accept until it is logically explained. The first conceit is that Heterosexuality IS exactly the same as Homosexuality, and how people came to that conclusion. I am not seeing this jump in logic.

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already had the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fools on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue. They should have known better.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

They are, for the most part, simply acknowledging the reality made with this decision and recent legal moves that make marriage a right. I agree with the idea and implementation but I also believe that it must be followed to its conclusion. It is hypocritical to demand that the right must be protected for gay couples and then suddenly support other couples being barred from marriage.

Marriage has been a right all along- the courts recognized that right about 80 years ago.

This is the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned State laws based upon that right of marriage.

The hypocrisy comes from those on the right- who oppose same gender marriage- suddenly arguing on behalf of sibling marriage and polygamy- even though they actually don't support any of them.

Irrelevant. Hypocritical behavior by one side does not negate hypocritical behavior on another.

When marriage became a right is also irrelevant - there is literally no argument left for marriage to be denied for virtually anything. 2 weeks ago you COULD have mounted a procreation/family argument even if it was wrong (it really was the last bastion of those that want government to control marriage) but that is now no longer an option.

I am not here to argue for or against polygamy or sibling marriage.

But there are arguments against each that existed before- and existed after last Friday's ruling.

Last Friday's ruling is as unrelated to the issues of sibling marriage and polygamy as Loving v. Virginia was.

 

[Syriusly]

The OP's original conceit is flawed. I am agnostic, by the way. I don't believe homosexuality is comparable to Heterosexuality. The concept of "GAY rights" implies that gays are being denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they can love anyone they want, they can live anywhere they want, vote, drive etc... I think a lot of people buy that gay agenda logic that says gays MUST be allowed to marry in the name of EQUALITY. There is an underlying dream logic to this, backed up with opinions and presumptions, that some of us just wont accept until it is logically explained. The first conceit is that Heterosexuality IS exactly the same as Homosexuality, and how people came to that conclusion. I am not seeing this jump in logic.

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[MaryL]

The OP's original conceit is flawed. I am agnostic, by the way. I don't believe homosexuality is comparable to Heterosexuality. The concept of "GAY rights" implies that gays are being denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they can love anyone they want, they can live anywhere they want, vote, drive etc... I think a lot of people buy that gay agenda logic that says gays MUST be allowed to marry in the name of EQUALITY. There is an underlying dream logic to this, backed up with opinions and presumptions, that some of us just wont accept until it is logically explained. The first conceit is that Heterosexuality IS exactly the same as Homosexuality, and how people came to that conclusion. I am not seeing this jump in logic.

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

I don't wish to annoy you or be contrary, but you are wrong, and misapprehend that simple little point. You are splitting hairs here. ALL Americans had the right to marry, in principle, And the only qualifier was ONE man ONE woman. Not three men and a wide screen TV, not two women and a vibrator. And the limitations make sense. It theoretically ideally promoted coupling with viable reproducing people, society creating a sanctuary for them. That's it. It wasn't meant as a symbol of sexuality or superiority of breeders. I am familiar with that derogatory gay slang. So hateful, they can be, like bitter spoilt rich brats.

 

[Syriusly]

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

So hateful, they can be, like bitter spoilt rich brats.

Now I think you are projecting about yourself.

 

[Coyote]

Gay men cannot have children. They have to depend on lesbians child-trafficking (after they've had sex with a man) to get the boys they want to adopt.

Pity you had to blemish an otherwise rare cogent post with the following errant nonsense:

“I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide.”

The Supreme Court did not 'circumvent' the Constitution, it appropriately followed and applied settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence consistent with a republican form of government, recognizing that citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not 'majority rule,' where residents of the states have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

Otherwise, your post reflects the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence apples only to the states and local governments, not private citizens or organizations such as churches, who are at liberty to decide the matter for themselves in accordance with religious doctrine and dogma concerning marriage rituals.

It's also appropriate and important to understand that for gay Americans they are infinitely more than just their sexuality, and to focus only on that aspect of who they are is unwarranted and unproductive.

Why do gays want to adopt conservative values?

I predict that as gays start marrying and having children they move to the conservative side.

As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

Seriously? What the fuck have the children done wrong and what choice do they have in who their parents are? Are you one of those who pretend to be Christian?

Polygamists have children. Same sex siblings can have children exactly how you did.

So what exactly is your problem?

Are you saying then that children of these relationships should be ostracized? Because THAT is "my problem" - regardless of the parents, the offspring have no choice in the matter.

What is your problem?

 

[Syriusly]

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

I don't wish to annoy you or be contrary, but you are wrong, and misapprehend that simple little point. You are splitting hairs here. ALL Americans had the right to marry, in principle, And the only qualifier was ONE man ONE woman. Not three men and a wide screen TV, not two women and a vibrator. And the limitations make sense. It theoretically ideally promoted coupling with viable reproducing people, society creating a sanctuary for them. That's it. It wasn't meant as a symbol of sexuality or superiority of breeders. I am familiar with that derogatory gay slang. So hateful, they can be, like bitter spoilt rich brats.

But I am correct. In Loving v. Virginia, the State argued that they were not interfering with anyone's right to marriage- any black man could marry any black woman. Any white man could marry any white woman. The Courts- correctly found that argument to be specious and ruled that Americans have the right to marry.

No court case said that marriage was about 1 man and 1 woman- not Loving v. Virginia, not Zablocki- not one.

Nor did the argument about procreation work- since States didn't care whether hetero couples could have children, would have children- and even allowed Hetero couples to marry who had to prove that they could not have children.

As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- marriage is about much more than children.

I am familiar with the homophobic terms- and they are really hateful.

 

[MaryL]

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

So hateful, they can be, like bitter spoilt rich brats.

Now I think you are projecting about yourself.

Really, stooping to slanders and innuendoes. I told you before, I am not trying to hurt anyone, not being hateful or personal. Can we be adults here?

 

[MaryL]

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

I don't wish to annoy you or be contrary, but you are wrong, and misapprehend that simple little point. You are splitting hairs here. ALL Americans had the right to marry, in principle, And the only qualifier was ONE man ONE woman. Not three men and a wide screen TV, not two women and a vibrator. And the limitations make sense. It theoretically ideally promoted coupling with viable reproducing people, society creating a sanctuary for them. That's it. It wasn't meant as a symbol of sexuality or superiority of breeders. I am familiar with that derogatory gay slang. So hateful, they can be, like bitter spoilt rich brats.

But I am correct. In Loving v. Virginia, the State argued that they were not interfering with anyone's right to marriage- any black man could marry any black woman. Any white man could marry any white woman. The Courts- correctly found that argument to be specious and ruled that Americans have the right to marry.

No court case said that marriage was about 1 man and 1 woman- not Loving v. Virginia, not Zablocki- not one.

Nor did the argument about procreation work- since States didn't care whether hetero couples could have children, would have children- and even allowed Hetero couples to marry who had to prove that they could not have children.

As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- marriage is about much more than children.

I am familiar with the homophobic terms- and they are really hateful.

We are on the same page about interracial marriage. I figured this trite tidbit would come up. That however is not comparable to gay marriage. We may concur that homosexuals will NEVER in any way, in and OF them selves, regardless of race, culture or religion EVER be able to create a child out of that union. Agreed? That one simple and obvious point. THAT is my point. To them (homosexuals) it's just a status symbol.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

And what is your "bridge" going to accomplish, exactly? What is it you think Jesus was accomplishing with all this "bridge-building" you think He was doing?

The fact you don't know the answer to that question is exactly the problem.

 

[Coyote]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

 

[SwimExpert]

No, that is your false perception of multiple partners. There are plenty of people all over the world with successful partnerships that involve more than 2 people. That is simply a fact. It is also true that many do not work out but that is not for YOU to decide OR judge but for them.

That has nothing to do with denying them marriage rights however.

I think you are forgetting where my contribution to this thread originated. I am not chiming in here to either condone or condemn polyamorous arrangements, nor polygamist marriage. I am addressing the fallacious argument that "if love is love, then any and all marriages whatsoever."

Advocates of same sex marriage have never argued that all forms and levels of love are equivocal. Forcing any such equivocation into our arguments is therefore fallacy. Same sex marriage has always been an issue that stands on its own merits. The same is the case for plural marriage. The same is true for incestual marriage.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

[

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

Which is why the manner in which same sex marriage came about, by judicial fiat, is a mistake. In no way am I defending the Supreme Court's decision because, as you point out, now the states are disempowered to put any restrictions on marriage, no matter how ridiculous people make marriage. Polygamy? Marrying one's son to avoid an inheritance tax? Marrying a pet, a car, or even a battery operated vibrator? And this is just the beginning.

The decision should have been made by the states, but on a personal level, I'm asking what moral right that happily married heterosexual couples have to say, "Bliss for me, but not for thee." As you see from the OP, I'm approaching this from a very personal perspective that involves close friends of my family. I cannot justify denying them the happiness I've found in being married to my wife in the eyes of society.

Well, part of your problem is that you've accepted the leftist redefinition of terms and resetting of parameters. You've bought into the whole "if you don't have a license, you're not married, so conservatives are stopping people from getting married" line. It's not true. That license doesn't convey a relationship, or "bliss" (and if you think marriage is bliss, you clearly haven't done it), or anything else of that nature. All it says is whether or not society in general is going to recognize your relationship by a certain definition for legal purposes. That's it.

No one is suggesting tracking down homosexual couples and dragging them away, kicking and screaming, to force them to live separately. No one cares what they do in their personal lives. We'd actually be mightily obliged if they'd keep it personal, instead of insistently putting it on display and demanding that people applaud it.

And frankly, I'm deeply disappointed in you and this newfound subjective morality - "I know someone who does it, therefore I have to approve to be a nice person and feel like I love them". You should know better. I have gay family members, and I love them very much, and I genuinely have no horse in the race where their personal relationships are concerned. It in no way obligates me to think that public policy should be changed to make them feel "accepted" and "approved".

You're quick to judge and very wrong about me and wrong about a lot of people by extension. Issues of right and wrong are deeply important to me as it is to my friends. Christian fundamentalists seem to think that they are the only ones rigid in their sense of morality and that anyone who disagrees with them are "flexible" in their morality. Hogwash. While you're meting out judgment and condemnation, the Lord you claim to serve is busily trying to reach out to sinners utilizing any vessel he can find who isn't so convinced of their or righteous standing they can't see their commonality with sinful humanity in equal need of God's saving grace.

 

[SwimExpert]

Sorry but that is utterly false. The paradox is there if you oppose some groups access to the right of marriage but not others based on virtually nothing.

Justify your assumption "based on virtually nothing."