We're Getting Married!

[Redfish]

Sorry, but the people who voted against prop 8 in california were not all rightwingers. They were from all demographics, races, and sexes. A majority of voting californians voted against gay marriage TWICE.

But when it comes to gayness, the will of the people means nothing, because liberals (like Gruber) know more than the rest of us and can sit in their academic towers and dictate how the rest of us must live.

Fuck liberalism. Liberalism is the downfall of humanity.

It doesn't matter "what" they were. They were wrong and the law was unconstitutional. Deal...

ya know, wytchey, we are never going to agree on this topic. But I respect your right to hold your beliefs and argue for them. Do you likewise respect mine?

its a yes or no question.

I don't care enough about your beliefs to respect them. As long as your "beliefs" don't infringe on anyone's fundamental rights, have them to your hearts content.

exactly what I expected, intolerance of any views or beliefs other than yours.

We know what you are. Can we now dispense with your pretend agenda of equality?

SeaBytch is certainly what we would call a militant gay.

She'd force (by public opinion of course) your church to accept gays

But of course screams bloody murder at the idea of anyone using public opinion to make anyone straight.

yes, a one trick pony. Her entire being and existence is centered on her lesbianism. quite sad.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It doesn't matter "what" they were. They were wrong and the law was unconstitutional. Deal...

ya know, wytchey, we are never going to agree on this topic. But I respect your right to hold your beliefs and argue for them. Do you likewise respect mine?

its a yes or no question.

I don't care enough about your beliefs to respect them. As long as your "beliefs" don't infringe on anyone's fundamental rights, have them to your hearts content.

exactly what I expected, intolerance of any views or beliefs other than yours.

We know what you are. Can we now dispense with your pretend agenda of equality?

SeaBytch is certainly what we would call a militant gay.

She'd force (by public opinion of course) your church to accept gays

But of course screams bloody murder at the idea of anyone using public opinion to make anyone straight.

yes, a one trick pony. Her entire being and existence is centered on her lesbianism. quite sad.

But you can't deny people rights simply because they are assholes

 

[mdk]

Marriage equality is the opposite of wanting "special rights".

Its wanting the same right as everyone else enjoys.

This is just one more example of the right wanting bigger and bigger government and laws that control our most personal and private activities.

RWs really do need to being Peeping Tom's, get out of other people's bedrooms and MYOB.

Sorry, but the people who voted against prop 8 in california were not all rightwingers. They were from all demographics, races, and sexes. A majority of voting californians voted against gay marriage TWICE.

But when it comes to gayness, the will of the people means nothing, because liberals (like Gruber) know more than the rest of us and can sit in their academic towers and dictate how the rest of us must live.

Fuck liberalism. Liberalism is the downfall of humanity.

Again, the will of the people means squat when it violates the US Constitution. Was it not the will of the people; via their elected representatives, to place idiotic restrictions on guns in DC? Their will conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore found null and void by the courts.

gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, no kind of marriage is mentioned in the constitution.

it is not a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue and as such, society should decide it.

Correct, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution and if society is going to decide theses issues then they cannot violate the US Constitution. Denying gays access to marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

how does the use of a word violate the 14th? civil unions for gays are in full compliance with the 14th. But thats not what the gay agenda is about. its about forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a vast majority of humans find wrong.

It doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything despite the fact that gays are marrying.

I had no problems with Civil Unions but the socially conservatives states decided to ban those as well because it was too much like marriage for their taste. They overplayed their hand and gays decided to focus on marriage instead of civil unions. The only reason civil unions are being bandied about again is b/c social conservatives are losing the battle. Besides, Considering our track record of separate but equal I can understand why some were wary of having two different classifications for marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage equality is the opposite of wanting "special rights".

Its wanting the same right as everyone else enjoys.

This is just one more example of the right wanting bigger and bigger government and laws that control our most personal and private activities.

RWs really do need to being Peeping Tom's, get out of other people's bedrooms and MYOB.

Sorry, but the people who voted against prop 8 in california were not all rightwingers. They were from all demographics, races, and sexes. A majority of voting californians voted against gay marriage TWICE.

But when it comes to gayness, the will of the people means nothing, because liberals (like Gruber) know more than the rest of us and can sit in their academic towers and dictate how the rest of us must live.

Fuck liberalism. Liberalism is the downfall of humanity.

Again, the will of the people means squat when it violates the US Constitution. Was it not the will of the people; via their elected representatives, to place idiotic restrictions on guns in DC? Their will conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore found null and void by the courts.

gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, no kind of marriage is mentioned in the constitution.

it is not a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue and as such, society should decide it.

Correct, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution and if society is going to decide theses issues then they cannot violate the US Constitution. Denying gays access to marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

how does the use of a word violate the 14th? civil unions for gays are in full compliance with the 14th. But thats not what the gay agenda is about. its about forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a vast majority of humans find wrong.

LOL...what civil unions would that be exactly? The ones that states specifically wrote language to prevent recognition of?

Edith Windsor was legally married to her wife- and she was denied her equal rights by DOMA- because the Federal government refused to recognize same gender marriage- AND civil unions.

Even today the Federal government does not treat civil unions legally in the same way as marriage.

Gay couples want to be treated legally exactly the same way as my wife and I are treated- which is marriage- and I see no reason why they shouldn't be- other than prejudice and bigotry.

 

[Syriusly]

Wanting to marry someone of a different race is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Heterosexuality is a behavior. Whether you believe being gay is an immutable trait or not (it is, just like race), is irrelevant as to whether or not gays and lesbians should have equal access to civil marriage. (and we do...in more states than we don't)

So gay people are a race now? or maybe a religion? How about you start a gay religion and claim religious freedom to gay marry ....Your arguments are weak and don't make any sense. Political hack politicians, AKA Judges force their views on the masses... That's tyranny to me. If states want it, let them have it. If states want legalized abortion, with restrictions of course, let them have it. Just don't try and force your ideology down my throat Religion is not a "behavior' its faith. Black men and white men are the same. black women and white women are the same. Claiming gay people are a race is stupidity

Riiigghhttt. My arguments are weak and yours are ironclad. That must be why there is now marriage equality in 35+ states now.

Nobody is "forcing" anything down your throat. (ah...the homoerotic imagery abounds doesn't it?) You are not effected in any way, shape or form by gays legally marrying, drama queen.

Religion is a behavior. It's a choice. You're not born religious. If marriage were prohibited for Baptists, that would not pass Constitutional muster in your world, but you have no problem denying it to gays because YOU believe it is a behavior.

And no, there are no "states rights" when it comes to civil marriage. A 40 year old man that marries his 15 year old first cousin in Alabama is still married in NY or CA.

Homosexuals are not a separate class of people.

They are as 'separate' a class as are Jews or Catholics.

what special privileges are given to jews and catholics?

LOL.....what special privileges are given to homosexuals?

 

[Redfish]

Sorry, but the people who voted against prop 8 in california were not all rightwingers. They were from all demographics, races, and sexes. A majority of voting californians voted against gay marriage TWICE.

But when it comes to gayness, the will of the people means nothing, because liberals (like Gruber) know more than the rest of us and can sit in their academic towers and dictate how the rest of us must live.

Fuck liberalism. Liberalism is the downfall of humanity.

Again, the will of the people means squat when it violates the US Constitution. Was it not the will of the people; via their elected representatives, to place idiotic restrictions on guns in DC? Their will conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore found null and void by the courts.

gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, no kind of marriage is mentioned in the constitution.

it is not a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue and as such, society should decide it.

Correct, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution and if society is going to decide theses issues then they cannot violate the US Constitution. Denying gays access to marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

how does the use of a word violate the 14th? civil unions for gays are in full compliance with the 14th. But thats not what the gay agenda is about. its about forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a vast majority of humans find wrong.

LOL...what civil unions would that be exactly? The ones that states specifically wrote language to prevent recognition of?

Edith Windsor was legally married to her wife- and she was denied her equal rights by DOMA- because the Federal government refused to recognize same gender marriage- AND civil unions.

Even today the Federal government does not treat civil unions legally in the same way as marriage.

Gay couples want to be treated legally exactly the same way as my wife and I are treated- which is marriage- and I see no reason why they shouldn't be- other than prejudice and bigotry.

civil unions SHOULD be treated equally with man/woman marriages. a gay union is not a marriage. two lesbians are not wives, two gay men are not husbands.

 

[Redfish]

So gay people are a race now? or maybe a religion? How about you start a gay religion and claim religious freedom to gay marry ....Your arguments are weak and don't make any sense. Political hack politicians, AKA Judges force their views on the masses... That's tyranny to me. If states want it, let them have it. If states want legalized abortion, with restrictions of course, let them have it. Just don't try and force your ideology down my throat Religion is not a "behavior' its faith. Black men and white men are the same. black women and white women are the same. Claiming gay people are a race is stupidity

Riiigghhttt. My arguments are weak and yours are ironclad. That must be why there is now marriage equality in 35+ states now.

Nobody is "forcing" anything down your throat. (ah...the homoerotic imagery abounds doesn't it?) You are not effected in any way, shape or form by gays legally marrying, drama queen.

Religion is a behavior. It's a choice. You're not born religious. If marriage were prohibited for Baptists, that would not pass Constitutional muster in your world, but you have no problem denying it to gays because YOU believe it is a behavior.

And no, there are no "states rights" when it comes to civil marriage. A 40 year old man that marries his 15 year old first cousin in Alabama is still married in NY or CA.

Homosexuals are not a separate class of people.

They are as 'separate' a class as are Jews or Catholics.

what special privileges are given to jews and catholics?

LOL.....what special privileges are given to homosexuals?

the ability to force someone to do business with them over the business owners objections.

tell me, why would a gay couple want to have a cake baked by a baker who did not approve of gay unions?

 

[Syriusly]

Riiigghhttt. My arguments are weak and yours are ironclad. That must be why there is now marriage equality in 35+ states now.

Nobody is "forcing" anything down your throat. (ah...the homoerotic imagery abounds doesn't it?) You are not effected in any way, shape or form by gays legally marrying, drama queen.

Religion is a behavior. It's a choice. You're not born religious. If marriage were prohibited for Baptists, that would not pass Constitutional muster in your world, but you have no problem denying it to gays because YOU believe it is a behavior.

And no, there are no "states rights" when it comes to civil marriage. A 40 year old man that marries his 15 year old first cousin in Alabama is still married in NY or CA.

Homosexuals are not a separate class of people..states are supposed to define marriage not some all powerful Judge. I think drug addicts and drunks should be a protected class, separate and apart from the non addicted. You don't make any sense where does it end? Your sexual desires should not define who you are. Gay people want special rights separate and apart from everyone else. Soon it'll discrimination not to let a cross dresser work cross dressed .There are no absolutes anymore with you liberals. Federal Judges said Dread Scott was not a person.... Doesn't make it so

Use your Google. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely.

And yes, gays are a "class of people"....there has been a SCOTUS ruling. (Romer v Evans)

Name these "special rights".

The right to marry the same gender is a special right, which has never before been in this country, and like i said, i could give a shit about some politician (AKA Judges) personal opinion. Gays are are "separate class" bullshit. your'e not special because your a women who likes other women sexually

Luckily no one gives a shit about your personal opinion either.

Americans have the right to marry- you would deny that to same gender couples- the courts- and more and more states disagree with you.

And they have legal weight- and you don't.

OK, then what argument do you put forward to prevent polygamists from marring the people they love? Why do you want to deprive them of their constitutional rights? its a serious question.

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, the will of the people means squat when it violates the US Constitution. Was it not the will of the people; via their elected representatives, to place idiotic restrictions on guns in DC? Their will conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore found null and void by the courts.

gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, no kind of marriage is mentioned in the constitution.

it is not a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue and as such, society should decide it.

Correct, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution and if society is going to decide theses issues then they cannot violate the US Constitution. Denying gays access to marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

how does the use of a word violate the 14th? civil unions for gays are in full compliance with the 14th. But thats not what the gay agenda is about. its about forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a vast majority of humans find wrong.

LOL...what civil unions would that be exactly? The ones that states specifically wrote language to prevent recognition of?

Edith Windsor was legally married to her wife- and she was denied her equal rights by DOMA- because the Federal government refused to recognize same gender marriage- AND civil unions.

Even today the Federal government does not treat civil unions legally in the same way as marriage.

Gay couples want to be treated legally exactly the same way as my wife and I are treated- which is marriage- and I see no reason why they shouldn't be- other than prejudice and bigotry.

civil unions SHOULD be treated equally with man/woman marriages. a gay union is not a marriage. two lesbians are not wives, two gay men are not husbands.

Well thank you for your opinion that is both inaccurate and too late.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Again, the will of the people means squat when it violates the US Constitution. Was it not the will of the people; via their elected representatives, to place idiotic restrictions on guns in DC? Their will conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore found null and void by the courts.

gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, no kind of marriage is mentioned in the constitution.

it is not a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue and as such, society should decide it.

Correct, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution and if society is going to decide theses issues then they cannot violate the US Constitution. Denying gays access to marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

how does the use of a word violate the 14th? civil unions for gays are in full compliance with the 14th. But thats not what the gay agenda is about. its about forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a vast majority of humans find wrong.

Of course they are not , but who cares if they say they are?

LOL...what civil unions would that be exactly? The ones that states specifically wrote language to prevent recognition of?

Edith Windsor was legally married to her wife- and she was denied her equal rights by DOMA- because the Federal government refused to recognize same gender marriage- AND civil unions.

Even today the Federal government does not treat civil unions legally in the same way as marriage.

Gay couples want to be treated legally exactly the same way as my wife and I are treated- which is marriage- and I see no reason why they shouldn't be- other than prejudice and bigotry.

civil unions SHOULD be treated equally with man/woman marriages. a gay union is not a marriage. two lesbians are not wives, two gay men are not husbands.

 

[Redfish]

Homosexuals are not a separate class of people..states are supposed to define marriage not some all powerful Judge. I think drug addicts and drunks should be a protected class, separate and apart from the non addicted. You don't make any sense where does it end? Your sexual desires should not define who you are. Gay people want special rights separate and apart from everyone else. Soon it'll discrimination not to let a cross dresser work cross dressed .There are no absolutes anymore with you liberals. Federal Judges said Dread Scott was not a person.... Doesn't make it so

Use your Google. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely.

And yes, gays are a "class of people"....there has been a SCOTUS ruling. (Romer v Evans)

Name these "special rights".

The right to marry the same gender is a special right, which has never before been in this country, and like i said, i could give a shit about some politician (AKA Judges) personal opinion. Gays are are "separate class" bullshit. your'e not special because your a women who likes other women sexually

Luckily no one gives a shit about your personal opinion either.

Americans have the right to marry- you would deny that to same gender couples- the courts- and more and more states disagree with you.

And they have legal weight- and you don't.

OK, then what argument do you put forward to prevent polygamists from marring the people they love? Why do you want to deprive them of their constitutional rights? its a serious question.

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

you want the courts to sanction gay marriage using a discrimination and equal rights argument. Those who want polygamy will use those same arguments and will cite gay marriage as a precedent.

What argument will you use to deny them the same rights as two gays?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Homosexuals are not a separate class of people..states are supposed to define marriage not some all powerful Judge. I think drug addicts and drunks should be a protected class, separate and apart from the non addicted. You don't make any sense where does it end? Your sexual desires should not define who you are. Gay people want special rights separate and apart from everyone else. Soon it'll discrimination not to let a cross dresser work cross dressed .There are no absolutes anymore with you liberals. Federal Judges said Dread Scott was not a person.... Doesn't make it so

Use your Google. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely.

And yes, gays are a "class of people"....there has been a SCOTUS ruling. (Romer v Evans)

Name these "special rights".

The right to marry the same gender is a special right, which has never before been in this country, and like i said, i could give a shit about some politician (AKA Judges) personal opinion. Gays are are "separate class" bullshit. your'e not special because your a women who likes other women sexually

Luckily no one gives a shit about your personal opinion either.

Americans have the right to marry- you would deny that to same gender couples- the courts- and more and more states disagree with you.

And they have legal weight- and you don't.

OK, then what argument do you put forward to prevent polygamists from marring the people they love? Why do you want to deprive them of their constitutional rights? its a serious question.

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

Wrong, the issues are EXACTLY related.

Either you are for the government not being allowed to define marriage, or you are for the government defining marriage.

You want it both ways, you want the government to define marriage, a little

Not possible

 

[Syriusly]

Riiigghhttt. My arguments are weak and yours are ironclad. That must be why there is now marriage equality in 35+ states now.

Nobody is "forcing" anything down your throat. (ah...the homoerotic imagery abounds doesn't it?) You are not effected in any way, shape or form by gays legally marrying, drama queen.

Religion is a behavior. It's a choice. You're not born religious. If marriage were prohibited for Baptists, that would not pass Constitutional muster in your world, but you have no problem denying it to gays because YOU believe it is a behavior.

And no, there are no "states rights" when it comes to civil marriage. A 40 year old man that marries his 15 year old first cousin in Alabama is still married in NY or CA.

Homosexuals are not a separate class of people.

They are as 'separate' a class as are Jews or Catholics.

what special privileges are given to jews and catholics?

LOL.....what special privileges are given to homosexuals?

tell me, why would a gay couple want to have a cake baked by a baker who did not approve of gay unions?

I am not a gay couple nor am I black, but I would imagine that many of us would insist upon our legal rights in the face of bigotry.

Some people don't care- some people do.

If you don't like the laws that require business's to serve customers regardless of their race, religion, national origin, gender or sexual preference, then do what same gender couples have done who disagree with the laws- change them.

Go to court to argue that the law is unconstitutional or go to the legislature and change the law.

Anything but just complaining about the people who ask that the law be followed.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Riiigghhttt. My arguments are weak and yours are ironclad. That must be why there is now marriage equality in 35+ states now.

Nobody is "forcing" anything down your throat. (ah...the homoerotic imagery abounds doesn't it?) You are not effected in any way, shape or form by gays legally marrying, drama queen.

Religion is a behavior. It's a choice. You're not born religious. If marriage were prohibited for Baptists, that would not pass Constitutional muster in your world, but you have no problem denying it to gays because YOU believe it is a behavior.

And no, there are no "states rights" when it comes to civil marriage. A 40 year old man that marries his 15 year old first cousin in Alabama is still married in NY or CA.

Homosexuals are not a separate class of people.

They are as 'separate' a class as are Jews or Catholics.

what special privileges are given to jews and catholics?

LOL.....what special privileges are given to homosexuals?

the ability to force someone to do business with them over the business owners objections.

tell me, why would a gay couple want to have a cake baked by a baker who did not approve of gay unions?

Separate issue, and I know for a fact that there are at least a dozen posters here who like myself would allow gay marriage and repeal the "public accommodation" laws

 

[Syriusly]

Use your Google. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely.

And yes, gays are a "class of people"....there has been a SCOTUS ruling. (Romer v Evans)

Name these "special rights".

The right to marry the same gender is a special right, which has never before been in this country, and like i said, i could give a shit about some politician (AKA Judges) personal opinion. Gays are are "separate class" bullshit. your'e not special because your a women who likes other women sexually

Luckily no one gives a shit about your personal opinion either.

Americans have the right to marry- you would deny that to same gender couples- the courts- and more and more states disagree with you.

And they have legal weight- and you don't.

OK, then what argument do you put forward to prevent polygamists from marring the people they love? Why do you want to deprive them of their constitutional rights? its a serious question.

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

you want the courts to sanction gay marriage using a discrimination and equal rights argument. Those who want polygamy will use those same arguments and will cite gay marriage as a precedent.

What argument will you use to deny them the same rights as two gays?

Not sure why you think asking the same question again will result in a different answer

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

 

[mdk]

Homosexuals are not a separate class of people.

They are as 'separate' a class as are Jews or Catholics.

what special privileges are given to jews and catholics?

LOL.....what special privileges are given to homosexuals?

the ability to force someone to do business with them over the business owners objections.

tell me, why would a gay couple want to have a cake baked by a baker who did not approve of gay unions?

Separate issue, and I know for a fact that there are at least a dozen posters here who like myself would allow gay marriage and repeal the "public accommodation" laws

I consider myself firmly planted in that school of thought.

 

[Syriusly]

Use your Google. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely.

And yes, gays are a "class of people"....there has been a SCOTUS ruling. (Romer v Evans)

Name these "special rights".

The right to marry the same gender is a special right, which has never before been in this country, and like i said, i could give a shit about some politician (AKA Judges) personal opinion. Gays are are "separate class" bullshit. your'e not special because your a women who likes other women sexually

Luckily no one gives a shit about your personal opinion either.

Americans have the right to marry- you would deny that to same gender couples- the courts- and more and more states disagree with you.

And they have legal weight- and you don't.

OK, then what argument do you put forward to prevent polygamists from marring the people they love? Why do you want to deprive them of their constitutional rights? its a serious question.

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

Wrong, the issues are EXACTLY related.

Either you are for the government not being allowed to define marriage, or you are for the government defining marriage.

You want it both ways, you want the government to define marriage, a little

Not possible

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

By the way- the opponents of mixed race marriage also argued that repealing those laws would lead to legalized polygamy.

Anyway- enjoy your strawman.

I am for treating same gender couples legally exactly as my wife and I have been treated.

You are either for treating them equally- or against treating them equally.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The right to marry the same gender is a special right, which has never before been in this country, and like i said, i could give a shit about some politician (AKA Judges) personal opinion. Gays are are "separate class" bullshit. your'e not special because your a women who likes other women sexually

Luckily no one gives a shit about your personal opinion either.

Americans have the right to marry- you would deny that to same gender couples- the courts- and more and more states disagree with you.

And they have legal weight- and you don't.

OK, then what argument do you put forward to prevent polygamists from marring the people they love? Why do you want to deprive them of their constitutional rights? its a serious question.

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

Wrong, the issues are EXACTLY related.

Either you are for the government not being allowed to define marriage, or you are for the government defining marriage.

You want it both ways, you want the government to define marriage, a little

Not possible

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

By the way- the opponents of mixed race marriage also argued that repealing those laws would lead to legalized polygamy.

Anyway- enjoy your strawman.

I am for treating same gender couples legally exactly as my wife and I have been treated.

You are either for treating them equally- or against treating them equally.

Then you don't understand the breadth of the issue

The issue is "Should the government be allowed to define marriage?"

If the answer is no then it is no

 

[Syriusly]

Luckily no one gives a shit about your personal opinion either.

Americans have the right to marry- you would deny that to same gender couples- the courts- and more and more states disagree with you.

And they have legal weight- and you don't.

OK, then what argument do you put forward to prevent polygamists from marring the people they love? Why do you want to deprive them of their constitutional rights? its a serious question.

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

Wrong, the issues are EXACTLY related.

Either you are for the government not being allowed to define marriage, or you are for the government defining marriage.

You want it both ways, you want the government to define marriage, a little

Not possible

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

By the way- the opponents of mixed race marriage also argued that repealing those laws would lead to legalized polygamy.

Anyway- enjoy your strawman.

I am for treating same gender couples legally exactly as my wife and I have been treated.

You are either for treating them equally- or against treating them equally.

Then you don't understand the breadth of the issue

The issue is "Should the government be allowed to define marriage?"

If the answer is no then it is no

That is your issue- not mine- nor is it the issue being argued in court.

Same gender couples are not arguing that governments cannot 'define' marriage- i.e. regulate who can get married- what they are arguing is that laws which prevent same gender couples from marrying violate their Constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law, and that states cannot articulate a compelling state interest in restricting their right to marry.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

OK, then what argument do you put forward to prevent polygamists from marring the people they love? Why do you want to deprive them of their constitutional rights? its a serious question.

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

Wrong, the issues are EXACTLY related.

Either you are for the government not being allowed to define marriage, or you are for the government defining marriage.

You want it both ways, you want the government to define marriage, a little

Not possible

That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.

You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.

By the way- the opponents of mixed race marriage also argued that repealing those laws would lead to legalized polygamy.

Anyway- enjoy your strawman.

I am for treating same gender couples legally exactly as my wife and I have been treated.

You are either for treating them equally- or against treating them equally.

Then you don't understand the breadth of the issue

The issue is "Should the government be allowed to define marriage?"

If the answer is no then it is no

That is your issue- not mine- nor is it the issue being argued in court.

Same gender couples are not arguing that governments cannot 'define' marriage- i.e. regulate who can get married- what they are arguing is that laws which prevent same gender couples from marrying violate their Constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law, and that states cannot articulate a compelling state interest in restricting their right to marry.

LOL and you don't think polygamists would have the SAME argument?

I think you KNOW they would, but admitting that would open your argument up to Redfish's slippery slope argument