What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[ScreamingEagle]

So you admit then to discrimination based on gender. That's helpful.

not at all.....you are free to marry a man....

Gays have been marrying for probably as long as there have been humans. It is as natural to gays, and to human beings, as marrying the opposite sex is to heterosexuals.

so...? there's been prohibition against gay marriage for probably as long....or even simply being gay....both prohibitions exist today in many countries....

there have always been aberrations in nature....doesn't mean they all need to be accepted in a society....

 

[kaz]

so...? there's been prohibition against gay marriage for probably as long....or even simply being gay....both prohibitions exist today in many countries....

Actually gay marriage is not "prohibited." It's just not recognized. There is no law recognizing eating broccoli for dinner. Does that mean government is prohibiting eating broccoli for dinner?

Gay couples can live together and be a couple to the ends of their days. Why does government have to validate their union exactly for it to have meaning to them? Before you ask, yes, I say the same for hetero marriage. But in no way is government not recognizing something prohibiting it.

 

[sfcalifornia]

if it is 'immutable' then that proof would have been in the Courts by now and this whole question would have been already resolved....

You didn't answer the question.

Is your heterosexuality immutable?

i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....

you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....

I didn't ask you to prove it and I didn't claim homosexuality is a protected criteria for marriage.

I asked you if your heterosexuality is immutable or if you, at some point in your life, turned straight.

Well?

 

[bodecea]

i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....

you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....

So you admit then to discrimination based on gender. That's helpful.

not at all.....you are free to marry a man....

A story from the Cold War applies to you and your ideas of "equal"

An American soldier sat at a bar in Berlin with a Soviet soldier and the talk turned to each country's form of government. The American said..."In the United States, we have freedom of speech. I can call the President a son of a bitch and not get in trouble." The Soviet soldier replied, "In Soviet Union, we too have freedom of speech. I can call your president a son of a bitch and not get in trouble."

 

[sfcalifornia]

not at all.....you are free to marry a man....

Gays have been marrying for probably as long as there have been humans. It is as natural to gays, and to human beings, as marrying the opposite sex is to heterosexuals.

so...? there's been prohibition against gay marriage for probably as long....or even simply being gay....both prohibitions exist today in many countries....

there have always been aberrations in nature....doesn't mean they all need to be accepted in a society....

You are so full of shit you have no idea.

Gay-friendly churches have been marrying gay couples for as long as I can remember.

You want to know how I know?

Because I've been going to gay weddings for decades.

So don't even begin to say there's a prohibition against gay marriages.

What you are talking about is the fact that the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriages. That's all. And since it's only the federal government we are talking about here, your religious interests in this debate are irrelevant.

 

[sfcalifornia]

i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....

you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....

So you admit then to discrimination based on gender. That's helpful.

not at all.....you are free to marry a man....

Why the hell would she want to?

Another question you keep ignoring.

 

[Valerie]

I think it is to acknowledge that homosexual couples are a relevant and equal asset to society as same sex couples are - and if one is recognized by the State then both should be. I think neither should be.

Right. The better question would be, "What is the purpose of state sponsored marriage?"


and then "How do you reconcile that purpose with the 14th amendment of our constitution?"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You didn't answer the question.

Is your heterosexuality immutable?

i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....

you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....

I didn't ask you to prove it and I didn't claim homosexuality is a protected criteria for marriage.

I asked you if your heterosexuality is immutable or if you, at some point in your life, turned straight.

Well?

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So...Religion isn't protected because it's a choice.

read your Constitution.....religion is right in there....unlike gay marriage...

Yes...a CHOICE has been in the constitution...ergo, being a CHOICE does not eliminate something for protection. Thank you for proving my point.

please explain your reasoning...

 

[WorldWatcher]

read your Constitution.....religion is right in there....unlike gay marriage...

Yes...a CHOICE has been in the constitution...ergo, being a CHOICE does not eliminate something for protection. Thank you for proving my point.

please explain your reasoning...

I think she's saying that religion is a choice, unless you can point to a religion gene - then her statement about choice would be consistent with your statements about choice.


(Just translating.)


>>>>

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Gays have been marrying for probably as long as there have been humans. It is as natural to gays, and to human beings, as marrying the opposite sex is to heterosexuals.

so...? there's been prohibition against gay marriage for probably as long....or even simply being gay....both prohibitions exist today in many countries....

there have always been aberrations in nature....doesn't mean they all need to be accepted in a society....

You are so full of shit you have no idea.

Gay-friendly churches have been marrying gay couples for as long as I can remember.

You want to know how I know?

Because I've been going to gay weddings for decades.

So don't even begin to say there's a prohibition against gay marriages.

What you are talking about is the fact that the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriages. That's all. And since it's only the federal government we are talking about here, your religious interests in this debate are irrelevant.

try to keep up.....i was not referring to just U.S. history but to "Gays have been marrying for probably as long as there have been humans."

 

[Nosmo King]

i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....

you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....

I didn't ask you to prove it and I didn't claim homosexuality is a protected criteria for marriage.

I asked you if your heterosexuality is immutable or if you, at some point in your life, turned straight.

Well?

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yes...a CHOICE has been in the constitution...ergo, being a CHOICE does not eliminate something for protection. Thank you for proving my point.

please explain your reasoning...

I think she's saying that religion is a choice, unless you can point to a religion gene - then her statement about choice would be consistent with your statements about choice.


(Just translating.)


>>>>

riiiight....that clears it up....

 

[Seawytch]

i don't have to prove immutability.....gender is the criteria for marriage....

you're the one claiming immutability so as to be a protected class....so prove it....

I didn't ask you to prove it and I didn't claim homosexuality is a protected criteria for marriage.

I asked you if your heterosexuality is immutable or if you, at some point in your life, turned straight.

Well?

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

So your ability to be married makes you special. It's the homophobic straights that want special rights, not gays.

 

[NYcarbineer]

not at all.....you are free to marry a man....

Gays have been marrying for probably as long as there have been humans. It is as natural to gays, and to human beings, as marrying the opposite sex is to heterosexuals.

so...? there's been prohibition against gay marriage for probably as long....or even simply being gay....both prohibitions exist today in many countries....

there have always been aberrations in nature....doesn't mean they all need to be accepted in a society....

Since when did a history of discrimination serve as just cause for a continuation of discrimination?

 

[Seawytch]

I didn't ask you to prove it and I didn't claim homosexuality is a protected criteria for marriage.

I asked you if your heterosexuality is immutable or if you, at some point in your life, turned straight.

Well?

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

With Prop 8, conservative's main argument is that government should be regulating procreation. With DOMA they are arguing that gays should be taxed more.

The epitome of irony!

 

[NYcarbineer]

One of the most useful aspects of the gay marriage debate is that it reminds us that when conservatives go on and on and on and on about 'liberty',

as they are so often inclined to do,

they are talking out their asses.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I didn't ask you to prove it and I didn't claim homosexuality is a protected criteria for marriage.

I asked you if your heterosexuality is immutable or if you, at some point in your life, turned straight.

Well?

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

*whiine*

obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...

 

[Nosmo King]

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

Why is it whenever Conservatives are faced with expanding basic rights to their fellow citizens, they complain that such a logical and moral extension of basic rights is, in their narrow view, "special rights"? I heard the very same arguments during the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement. Again in the 1970s and the Women's Rights movement.

Seems protecting basic civil rights for every citizen means creating "special" rights to the stunted Conservative view of 'rights'.

Perhaps that sorry attitude explains why during each and every struggle for tolerance and the protection of rights to each and every minority group, it has been Conservatives providing the resistance.

It seems that Conservatives are happy with their rights but down right belligerent about protecting the rights of others. In other words, they love America, but hate Americans.

With Prop 8, conservative's main argument is that government should be regulating procreation. With DOMA they are arguing that gays should be taxed more.

The epitome of irony!

Government regulation and high taxes. Seems the Conservatives quiver is full of arrows, or boomerangs!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Gays have been marrying for probably as long as there have been humans. It is as natural to gays, and to human beings, as marrying the opposite sex is to heterosexuals.

so...? there's been prohibition against gay marriage for probably as long....or even simply being gay....both prohibitions exist today in many countries....

there have always been aberrations in nature....doesn't mean they all need to be accepted in a society....

Since when did a history of discrimination serve as just cause for a continuation of discrimination?

since he brought it up....