Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.
Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.
Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?
All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.
But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.
Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.
Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.
The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.
Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.
Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.
You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.
I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.
And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?
You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.
Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.
You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.
You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.
You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.
Which is why you failed.
Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?
Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?
It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires. I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.
Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all. But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.
And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage. Like requiring that they be the same race.
Your polls are wrong but its a moot point. Polls are to a liberal elitist what .
Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.
Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.
Indeed. And there were times when marital contracts held wives as property. We, as a society changed that (in most places). There were times when marital contracts forbid interracial unions. We, as a society changed that. The changes are minor. And, like the prior changes, the inclusion of same sex couples only offers the same benefits to other. It does not remove any from existing couples. It does not effect heterosexual couples at all.
Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.
Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.
Indeed. And there were times when marital contracts held wives as property. We, as a society changed that (in most places). There were times when marital contracts forbid interracial unions. We, as a society changed that. The changes are minor. And, like the prior changes, the inclusion of same sex couples only offers the same benefits to other. It does not remove any from existing couples. It does not effect heterosexual couples at all.
Yep- my marriage to my wife is not affected because John and Jim can get married.
Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.
That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.
Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.
Indeed. And there were times when marital contracts held wives as property. We, as a society changed that (in most places). There were times when marital contracts forbid interracial unions. We, as a society changed that. The changes are minor. And, like the prior changes, the inclusion of same sex couples only offers the same benefits to other. It does not remove any from existing couples. It does not effect heterosexual couples at all.
Yep- my marriage to my wife is not affected because John and Jim can get married.
Marriage exists as a benefit only as a privileged state exclusive to the unions a society feels desirous of promoting.
Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
There were countries hundreds of years ago that did. Isn't that what you were saying? That is was always a man and a woman?
In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit. No one is attacking your values. You are attacking other people's values. No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender. In fact, heterosexual marriages are exactly the same as they were before.
If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage?? You keep avoiding answering that question. Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine. Typical.
Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
There were countries hundreds of years ago that did. Isn't that what you were saying? That is was always a man and a woman?
In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit. No one is attacking your values. You are attacking other people's values. No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender. In fact, heterosexual marriages are exactly the same as they were before.
If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage?? You keep avoiding answering that question. Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine. Typical.
Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
There were countries hundreds of years ago that did. Isn't that what you were saying? That is was always a man and a woman?
In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit. No one is attacking your values. You are attacking other people's values. No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender. In fact, heterosexual marriages are exactly the same as they were before.
If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage?? You keep avoiding answering that question. Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine. Typical.
You are an abomination and you live to attack western christian values. Why lie about it with all these words? You know, deep down, of your disgust with western moral values. Lets get that straight first.
The values are mutually exclusive.
And I dont demand you answer my question. As I said I know I will get no answer. I will get a lie or a lot of words misdirecting. But never an answer. My point was to expose your bigotry and illogic. Which I did.
Lots of shucking and jiving there for you to keep your bigotry against polyamourous unions of 14+ men hidden.
You've admitted a hatred of legal forms of marriage. it is no coincidence you support anything that undermines it.
Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
There were countries hundreds of years ago that did. Isn't that what you were saying? That is was always a man and a woman?
In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit. No one is attacking your values. You are attacking other people's values. No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender. In fact, heterosexual marriages are exactly the same as they were before.
If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage?? You keep avoiding answering that question. Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine. Typical.
And by the way you may want to mainline that Ritalin. I never accused anyone of forcing me into a gay marriage. I said gay unions masquerading as marriage were (1) forced upon an unwilling citizenry and (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
Now ask "but whyeeeeeeee?". Doesn't matter. So long as you know they are and that that a hatred of Western and christian values along with a desire for no legal Marriage ALWAYS go along with support for gay marriage. ALWAYS.
Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Marriage is a union between a man and woman, or a man and several women, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Here in the United States we only recognized unions between couples- in other countries it can include a man and several women- and that tradition goes back way beyond the United States.
No western country did. Because ultimately it is western values under attack as expressed by the US and UK. The "other countries" you speak of are backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies. And might I add that anywhere it includes a man and several women the women are mere chattel.
Besides simply attacking Americans what is the allure of backwards non christian societies for liberals?
There were countries hundreds of years ago that did. Isn't that what you were saying? That is was always a man and a woman?
In fact, in Great Britain (centuries ago) there were plural marriages.
And this "western values are under attack" is bullshit. No one is attacking your values. You are attacking other people's values. No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same gender. In fact, heterosexual marriages are exactly the same as they were before.
If you are claiming someone is attacking your values, then tell us what effect same sex marriage has on your or your marriage?? You keep avoiding answering that question. Funny that you demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine. Typical.
And by the way you may want to mainline that Ritalin. I never accused anyone of forcing me into a gay marriage. I said gay unions masquerading as marriage were (1) forced upon an unwilling citizenry and (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.
Now ask "but whyeeeeeeee?". Doesn't matter. So long as you know they are and that that a hatred of Western and christian values along with a desire for no legal Marriage ALWAYS go along with support for gay marriage. ALWAYS.
Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
No.
Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
No.
You should learn the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man and the purpose of our written Constitution. Your flaw is not understanding federalism and the Fourteenth Amendment.
It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires. I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.
Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all. But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.
And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage. Like requiring that they be the same race.
Your polls are wrong but its a moot point. Polls are to a liberal elitist what .
Funny how polls are a moot point- but only when they disagree with you.
Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.
Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?
The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?
No.
You should learn the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man and the purpose of our written Constitution. Your flaw is not understanding federalism and the Fourteenth Amendment.
One of the purposes of our Constitution is to prevent mob rule. The minority is protected. And the 14th provides equality under the law.
