Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Wry Catcher]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Once again the ignorance of our Constitution is broadcast for the world to read.

Art. 1, sec. 8 clause 1 states in full:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
​

Where in the COTUS is general Welfare defined?

If we are to consider the Preamble to COTUS as a mission/vision statement, the concept of a general Welfare along with a common defence (defense) are a guarantee of protection to each individual citizen of civil rights, not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Thus, the congress via the taxing power can pass legislation to provide cradle to grave protection against disease to each of us, and a guarantee to each citizen that the civil rights (life, liberty, property and happiness) equally to all.

The common defense and general welfare clauses are not grants of power. The grants of powers are enumerated and explicit. The general welfare clause was defined in the debates and writings and came from two articles in the Articles of Confederation, and the meaning and intent did not change with the Constitution.

Methinks you have not done your research.

Madison and Hamilton did not agree, and the issue was sort of decided by Butler, but not really.

 

[DOTR]

Ignorance without reason is liberalism.

I'll let a liberal argue that. Since I am not a liberal...

You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.

Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same? Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives? Those are conservative and libertarian traits. Not liberal. In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.

Ididn't say they were the same thing. I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives. And they do, in fact, share those two traits.

It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.

Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Then what did we move past do tell?

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

Is that what you were speaking of? I thought it was gays wanting a marriage license. In fact I know it was. I asked you why those men never saw anything about gay marriage in the laws they passed and ruled on.

And I used lynching blacks as an example of stopping something that was always illegal.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'll let a liberal argue that. Since I am not a liberal...

You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.

Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same? Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives? Those are conservative and libertarian traits. Not liberal. In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.

Ididn't say they were the same thing. I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives. And they do, in fact, share those two traits.

It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.

Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.

I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I? Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.

Conservative DO continually complain about the gov't interfering too much in private lives. Which is why I phrased it the way I did.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dude, if you can't debate a topic without lying and inventing what you want me to have said, I have no interest in continuing. You have basically made all sorts of baseless accusations and gone from discussing a topic to personal attacks. You have very little actual basis for your hatred, but spew all sorts of bullshit hoping it will stick. It didn't.

 

[DOTR]

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
But never be in doubt what the intent is.

If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage. You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.

I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage. But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.

I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other. That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites. When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy. And you have lied plenty.

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

 

[DOTR]

You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.

Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same? Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives? Those are conservative and libertarian traits. Not liberal. In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.

Ididn't say they were the same thing. I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives. And they do, in fact, share those two traits.

It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.

Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.

I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I? Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.

Conservative DO continually complain about the gov't interfering too much in private lives. Which is why I phrased it the way I did.

Thats the caricature you get from liberalism. Actually conservatives want government to protect traditional marriage and traditional marriage only. Fact. You cant be there.

 

[DOTR]

You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.

Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same? Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives? Those are conservative and libertarian traits. Not liberal. In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.

Ididn't say they were the same thing. I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives. And they do, in fact, share those two traits.

It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.

Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.

I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I? Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.

.

The topic is marriage. I will assume any and all comments refer to it in some way.

 

[DOTR]

Dude, if you can't debate a topic without lying and inventing what you want me to have said, I have no interest in continuing. You have basically made all sorts of baseless accusations and gone from discussing a topic to personal attacks. You have very little actual basis for your hatred, but spew all sorts of bullshit hoping it will stick. It didn't.

It is stuck. You are covered with goo of your own production. Enjoy

 

[WinterBorn]

Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same? Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives? Those are conservative and libertarian traits. Not liberal. In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.

Ididn't say they were the same thing. I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives. And they do, in fact, share those two traits.

It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.

Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.

I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I? Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.

Conservative DO continually complain about the gov't interfering too much in private lives. Which is why I phrased it the way I did.

Thats the caricature you get from liberalism. Actually conservatives want government to protect traditional marriage and traditional marriage only. Fact. You cant be there.

You are confusing republicans with conservatives. They are not the same thing.
I never said I was a republican. But, once again, what I stated is accurate. You are the one twisting things.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dude, if you can't debate a topic without lying and inventing what you want me to have said, I have no interest in continuing. You have basically made all sorts of baseless accusations and gone from discussing a topic to personal attacks. You have very little actual basis for your hatred, but spew all sorts of bullshit hoping it will stick. It didn't.

It is stuck. You are covered with goo of your own production. Enjoy

LMAO!!! Too funny. You continually lie about what I have said, what I want and what I believe. Then you even lie claiming I receive a gov't check.

No junior, nothing stuck.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same? Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives? Those are conservative and libertarian traits. Not liberal. In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.

Ididn't say they were the same thing. I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives. And they do, in fact, share those two traits.

It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.

Hint...conflate does not mean "they are the same thing". Arguing with a liberal always always always comes down to arguing about words. I used "conflate" as a transitive verb..Websters defintion (in context) as "confuse".
In fact though they do NOT share those two things. Conservatives support legal marriage only for male female unions and on approval by the state. Libertarians dont care who gets married so long as the orders dont come from the Federal Courts.
You obviously cant be either...much less be both opposing philosophies.

I did not mention marriage in my statement, now did I? Once again, please try and stick with what I actually say.

.

The topic is marriage. I will assume any and all comments refer to it in some way.

When you call me a liberal, you are the one derailling the topic, not me. And obviously, you spoke out of ignorance.

How about assuming what I say is what I mean? Oh wait, that would mean most of your arguments couldn't be made.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
But never be in doubt what the intent is.

If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage. You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.

I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage. But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.

I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other. That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites. When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy. And you have lied plenty.

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

I'll answer them separately.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage. The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been. Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote. Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men. Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority. During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks. States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant. But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
You can believe whatever you want. Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again). Families are not effected by someone else's marriage. That gay couple down the street lived together for years. Now they have a license and benefits. Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned. But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.

 

[DOTR]

So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
But never be in doubt what the intent is.

If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage. You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.

I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage. But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.

I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other. That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites. When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy. And you have lied plenty.

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

I'll answer them separately.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage. The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been. Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote. Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men. Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority. During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks. States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant. But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
You can believe whatever you want. Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again). Families are not effected by someone else's marriage. That gay couple down the street lived together for years. Now they have a license and benefits. Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned. But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.

Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?

 

[DOTR]

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.

 

[WinterBorn]

If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage. You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.

I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage. But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.

I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other. That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites. When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy. And you have lied plenty.

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

I'll answer them separately.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage. The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been. Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote. Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men. Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority. During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks. States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant. But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
You can believe whatever you want. Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again). Families are not effected by someone else's marriage. That gay couple down the street lived together for years. Now they have a license and benefits. Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned. But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.

Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?

Huge fail? LMAO!! You don't like the answers so it is a fail?

Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land? No.
Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority? No.
Is someone's impression a reason to do it either? No.
Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families? No.

And once again, you lied. I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.". I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages". You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You posted reasons you don't think it should.

So stop lying and read what I actually say. Is that so difficult? Are you a chronic liar?

 

[DOTR]

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

I'll answer them separately.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage. The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been. Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote. Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men. Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority. During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks. States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant. But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
You can believe whatever you want. Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again). Families are not effected by someone else's marriage. That gay couple down the street lived together for years. Now they have a license and benefits. Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned. But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.

Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?

Huge fail? LMAO!! You don't like the answers so it is a fail?

Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land? No.
Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority? No.
Is someone's impression a reason to do it either? No.
Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families? No.

And once again, you lied. I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.". I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages". You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You posted reasons you don't think it should.

So stop lying and read what I actually say. Is that so difficult? Are you a chronic liar?

So use them to support gay marriage then.

 

[DOTR]

Lets take them one by one. The Catholic church opposes gay marriage licenses. Use that argument to support gay marriage licenses.

 

[DOTR]

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

I'll answer them separately.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage. The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been. Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote. Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men. Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority. During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks. States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant. But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
You can believe whatever you want. Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again). Families are not effected by someone else's marriage. That gay couple down the street lived together for years. Now they have a license and benefits. Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned. But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.

Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?

Huge fail? LMAO!! You don't like the answers so it is a fail?

Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land? No.
Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority? No.
Is someone's impression a reason to do it either? No.
Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families? No.

And once again, you lied. I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.". I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages". You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You posted reasons you don't think it should.

So stop lying and read what I actually say. Is that so difficult? Are you a chronic liar?

Number two...in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.

Use that to support gay marriage licenses pleae. As you said you could.

 

[DOTR]

Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.