Four simple questions gay marriage supporters can't answer

[koshergrl]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Here is my question to you:
My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- why shouldn't a same gender couple have the exact same right to marry each other as my wife and I had?

They should. In whatever state defines marriage that way. This is the problem I have with you people is there's no sense of compromise, only a desire to obliterate all opposition and have it all. A Supreme Court decision returning gay marriage to the states would not end gay marriage any more than overturning Roe V. Wade would end abortion in America. What it would do is allow the states their constitutional right to define an issue over which the federal government has no delegated power. That means no matter what gays can marry. But that's not enough for you people, you demand that you should marry everywhere and even force pastors, christian owned businesses and everyone else to cater to your lifestyle. This kind of absolutism is not only evil and bigoted, it's unamerican.

Sorry- we have a long history of the courts telling states that they don't get to have unconstitutional marriage laws.

Didn't work with mixed race marriage bans, didn't work with laws preventing parents who owed child support from marrying and didn't work on bans of inmates from marrying.

What is evil is thinking that Americans do not have- and should not have recourse to the courts to oppose what they consider to be unconstitutional laws.

And my 'lifestyle'? I am happily married with a child- my lifestyle is working, parenting, husbanding and being good to people.

Nobody has to 'cater' to my lifestyle- but if they refuse to do business with me because I am an atheist, or a heterosexual, or because of the color of my skin- well then I have no problem with using laws that have been in effect since 1964.

Laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are not unconstitutional.

In Loving V Virginia, the law was struck down because it was applied in such way as to favor whites over blacks, and unlike SSM, there's an actual Constitutional protection for races not to be discriminated against. The two have nothing to do with each other.

You have 8 bakeries to choose from, but you belligerent assholes seem to target the one that has a religious objection and decide THAT's the bakery you want to cater your freak show. That's not discrimination, that's the bully pretending he's a victim.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Cowardly questions in the OP

Cowardly, how so?

Because the whole childish notion that "ohhh.. they can marry too!"

(But only to straght people like everyone else and so uh...seee! No discrimination!!)

Is a cowardly fucking canaard, its bending over fucking backwards intellectually to justify a childish and pig headed bias.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

I dont give a rats ass what your opinion is, bigot.

I take a bigots words with about as much weight as a 4 year old's.

Oh, stunning counter argument. We've been undone!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

QBALL SAID:

“Can I marry a woman in Georgia, then legally marry another woman in Alabama? No. Can I marry someone under the legal "marriageable" age? No. Can I marry a close relative? For the most part, no. Can I marry two, three, twelve women at once? No. But what if I'm "in love" and want to "make a commitment"? The answer is still no.”

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

You also succeed in only continuing to exhibit your ignorance of the law and the issue.

The contract law that is marriage is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Three or more persons may not marry, nor those who are close relatives, nor those who already have a spouse because marriage law is not written to accommodate such configurations; one cannot be 'denied' access to a law he is not eligible to participate in, and consequently no civil rights 'violation' occurs.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, just as the laws are written now, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined' – where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in does manifest as a civil rights violation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is screwing with a tradition that goes back thousands of years. The family is the building bloc of society.

Tradition is often nothing more than societies doing the wrong thing for a very long time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow American citizens residing in the states access to state laws, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private citizens or private organizations such as churches, where churches remain at liberty to deny religious marriage to same-sex couples.

What you and others on the social right need to give up is your unwarranted hate toward gay Americans, and give up seeking to disadvantage them in matters of public law and policy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... bigot. I take a bigots words...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

So, what did we learn there?

We learned that the use of the word Bigot, is a demonstration of bigotry.

Which is nature proving once again that whatever you find a Relativist bitching about, you can rest assured that they presently guilty of it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

QBALL SAID:

“Can I marry a woman in Georgia, then legally marry another woman in Alabama? No. Can I marry someone under the legal "marriageable" age? No. Can I marry a close relative? For the most part, no. Can I marry two, three, twelve women at once? No. But what if I'm "in love" and want to "make a commitment"? The answer is still no.”

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

ROFL!

No... It's not.

What it is, is the demonstration of the valid and legitimate standards established by the culture to sustain its own viability.

But, in fairness... as a member of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, there was no way you could have known that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Here is my question to you:
My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- why shouldn't a same gender couple have the exact same right to marry each other as my wife and I had?

I have asked this question many times but so far, none of them has answered. Its simply this:

If between consenting adults, should I have a say in who the phobes choose to marry? OR the reason they are marrying?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It is screwing with a tradition that goes back thousands of years. The family is the building bloc of society.

Tradition is often nothing more than societies doing the wrong thing for a very long time.

Wrong. Societies who have been around for a very long time prove their traditions are the right thing.

 

[Qball]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1- no
2- no

Really? A gay man and a lesbian would be denied a marriage license if they went to apply for one? How would the county clerk know they're homosexual?

3- one? Estate tax protection. Visitation rights. Community property protections.

There is no such thing as "estate tax protection" or "community property protections". Adding the word "protections" to the end of these terms don't make them protections. "Visitation rights" are not "rights" in the constitutional sense nor are they exclusive to married couples.

4- No- the same thing happened with mixed race marriage laws. Many states had repealed their bans on mixed race marriage laws, but many states had not- the Federal courts said that such bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional- that the States arguments that any man could marry any woman so long as both were black or both were white was unconstitutional. Finally the Supreme Court settled the issue- as will likely happen this year with same gender marriage.

Actually, with exception of one state, the states that overturned anti-miscegenation laws did so through the legislative process. And they did on the basis that it is wrong to imprison and otherwise punish people for marrying individuals of another race. The key difference here is same-sex marriage either is or isn't of the law. It's not punishable by prison or fines or banishment from a state the way interracial marriage was.

5- This is a two parter- and I would refer you to any of the court decisions regarding same sex marriage which discusses them at length- there are two parts:
a) Marriage is a settled right in the United States- according to the Supreme Court this predates the Constitution but is also covered under the 14th Amendments guarantees.
b) The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, and due process under the law. The couples suing have successfully argued that they did not have equal protection- because the law prevents them from marrying someone that they would legally be able to marry other than their gender.

a) Every case entitling someone to marriage has done so with the understanding that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Thus far, no case has found a right to marry while submitting to a newfangled or controversial definition of marriage.
b) "Equal protection" has nothing to do with marriage. It has in the past because states have tied penalties to marriage to achieve an end that has nothing to do with the purposes of marriage. Laws banning intermarriage, banning someone in arrears for child support, and banning someone incarcerated from marrying implicated your freedom to marry in other penalogical pursuits, which is why they were struck down. People suing to say laws defining marriage as man/woman want to make the same case without much specificity.

Here is my question to you:
My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- why shouldn't a same gender couple have the exact same right to marry each other as my wife and I had?

Because their government ultimately has no compelling reason to recognize them as they do yours. I made a thread a few years ago explaining this, but legal marriage basically serves two functions: 1) to create a social safety net for those at an economic disadvantage (women, children), and 2) to facilitate the phenomena of childbirth.

Economically, women are more vulnerable than men. What is the key difference between women and men (that the government cares about)? They can and likely will have children. Women take months off of work to have children. Women tend to come out of the workplace to raise children. Men...tend not to.

Men work and earn more than women, and thus, women and their children are reliant on them for sustenance (not as much now, but traditionally, this has been the case). The "rights and benefits" tied to marriage exist for this reason. If a man lost his job, got sick and died, left his family, got sent to war and died, was disabled and could no longer work...the government would provide benefits for his family.

Children are not a natural consequence of same-sex unions. They can obtain kids, but that relationship is categorically barren. So thus, bestowing costly benefits and incentives to these couples is not a necessary investment.

 

[koshergrl]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow American citizens residing in the states access to state laws, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private citizens or private organizations such as churches, where churches remain at liberty to deny religious marriage to same-sex couples.

What you and others on the social right need to give up is your unwarranted hate toward gay Americans, and give up seeking to disadvantage them in matters of public law and policy.

No, marriage is a sacrament.

And no number of bad laws will ever force Christians to view it as something different. The state doesn't dictate what a sacrament is. Sowwy.

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Matrimony

 

[koshergrl]

"Matrimony is a sacrament and as such it is a sign to the world of the invisible God living in our midst - the living God who bears fruit in the lives of two people."

THE LIVING SACRAMENT MARRIAGE

 

[G.T.]

... bigot. I take a bigots words...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

So, what did we learn there?

We learned that the use of the word Bigot, is a demonstration of bigotry.

Which is nature proving once again that whatever you find a Relativist bitching about, you can rest assured that they presently guilty of it.

However your mental masturbation works to justify your being a bigot, bigot?

I could give a fuck.

 

[koshergrl]

"
In affirming the sacramental

aspect of Christian marriage,
the church was officially saying
that marriage among Christians
was sacred, that it was intended
by God to be not only a way to
achieve closeness with God,
but that it was a public symbol
of something very profound,
namely God’s relationship with
God’s beloved, the members of
the church."

In other words...marriage is a sacrament.

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/145520.pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow American citizens residing in the states access to state laws, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private citizens or private organizations such as churches, where churches remain at liberty to deny religious marriage to same-sex couples.

What you and others on the social right need to give up is your unwarranted hate toward gay Americans, and give up seeking to disadvantage them in matters of public law and policy.

No, marriage is a sacrament.

And no number of bad laws will ever force Christians to view it as something different. The state doesn't dictate what a sacrament is. Sowwy.

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Matrimony

Your ignorance, hate, and stupidity, representative of most on the social right, clearly demonstrates why the Constitution and its case law are needed as much today as any time during our Nation's history.

 

[koshergrl]

So if marriage is a sacrament, how can the state force us to participate in a mockery of that sacrament, given we have freedom of religion?

Oh yeah..the state can't.

Now, can the state tell us what a sacrament is, and by denying the holy nature of it, be able to punish us if we fail to accept that marriage isn't holy?

No, not if we have freedom of religion.

 

[Qball]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1. Yes (no one asks to see you consumate things. 'Marriages of convenience' used to be very popular when homosexuality was illegal.)

2. Yes (see above)

3. Hospital visitation right.

4. Marriage is a civil contract. Wouldn't say getting married is a right. It's just a legal contract as far as the government is concerned.

14th Amendment. If the government can define what a marriage is (insofar as it, the government is concerned, and what rights and benefits it'll grant because you get married) then it must make marriage available to everyone. Not just men-women.

And the government must make marriage available to everyone...not just men and women? Who else is there? Cats and dogs.

See- even though I knew where you were going with this thread, I was willing to accept that you had a legitimate argument to be made somewhere- and then you went with the 'cats and dogs'.

Tell me- can you tell the difference between humans- and dogs?

If you are unable to tell why we allow two adult humans to marry- and why we will not be allowing dogs and cats to marry each other- then you are too far down the rabbit hole to have a discussion with.

[blinks]

I was asking an honest question. He said the government should make marriage available to everyone, not just men and women. But...it is available to everyone.

 

[koshergrl]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow American citizens residing in the states access to state laws, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private citizens or private organizations such as churches, where churches remain at liberty to deny religious marriage to same-sex couples.

What you and others on the social right need to give up is your unwarranted hate toward gay Americans, and give up seeking to disadvantage them in matters of public law and policy.

No, marriage is a sacrament.

And no number of bad laws will ever force Christians to view it as something different. The state doesn't dictate what a sacrament is. Sowwy.

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Matrimony

Your ignorance, hate, and stupidity, representative of most on the social right, clearly demonstrates why the Constitution and its case law are needed as much today as any time during our Nation's history.

Pointing out your stupidity isn't hatred. It's just superior understanding on my part. Though it is obvious to every person on this site that you are full of hatred. Meanwhile, marriage is a sacrament, the mockery of which is sacrilege. Which I proved, and which made you mad.

Oh well. You spend most of your time writhing in futile rage. I feel for you. You should seek God.