Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[DOTR]

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

No, you did not. None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage. Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means. I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.

LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.

I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage. That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage. You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?

I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.

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

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

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.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

Pretend you work for the gov't. And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "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".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.

Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.

If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.

 

[DOTR]

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.


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

So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?

Orwellian

I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality. And I doubt you do either. And really, it does not matter at all. Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.

Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?

You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter? Okey dokey.

Did they or didnt those mean old homophobes who wrote the law intend for it to be used for gay marriage licenses?

Your ignorant, inability to read ms you won't understand my answers anyway. That you continue to lie, over and over and over, means you haven't the intellect to carry on a serious conversation. That you resort to name-calling instead of discussion means you are clueless and think personal attacks are a substitute for facts.

I'm going to bed. Have someone read my posts to you and explain what they mean. You are obviously too ignorant to comprehend.

Of course I know serious conversation cant be had with dissolute amoral liberals. My intent was to expose that very amorality and warn any readers what the real goal is.
\ Control of anyone who doesn't toe the liberal elite line and the destruction of traditional marriage.
I am well aware you are used to seeing the elites present both sides and then caricature and knock one of their creations down. You failed because you dont control this end in this particular case.

 

[WinterBorn]

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

No, you did not. None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage. Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means. I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.

LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.

I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage. That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage. You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?

I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

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.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

Pretend you work for the gov't. And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "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".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.

Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.

If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.

You ignorant ass. Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around? No, I did not.

You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.

I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage. Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality. And I doubt you do either. And really, it does not matter at all. Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.

Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?

You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter? Okey dokey.

Did they or didnt those mean old homophobes who wrote the law intend for it to be used for gay marriage licenses?

Your ignorant, inability to read ms you won't understand my answers anyway. That you continue to lie, over and over and over, means you haven't the intellect to carry on a serious conversation. That you resort to name-calling instead of discussion means you are clueless and think personal attacks are a substitute for facts.

I'm going to bed. Have someone read my posts to you and explain what they mean. You are obviously too ignorant to comprehend.

Of course I know serious conversation cant be had with dissolute amoral liberals. My intent was to expose that very amorality and warn any readers what the real goal is.
\ Control of anyone who doesn't toe the liberal elite line and the destruction of traditional marriage.
I am well aware you are used to seeing the elites present both sides and then caricature and knock one of their creations down. You failed because you dont control this end in this particular case.

You are nuts. I didn't try to control anything. I simply expected you to be able to read. But I guess your tinfoil hat spoiled the liberal elite's mind control ray, huh?

 

[DOTR]

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

No, you did not. None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage. Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means. I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.

LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.

I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage. That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage. You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?

I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

Pretend you work for the gov't. And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "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".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.

Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.

If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.

You ignorant ass. Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around? No, I did not.

You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.

I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage. Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.

Those are the reasons I support traditional marriage only. Sorry you dont like them. Expected it as a matter of fact. But I'm still waiting for you to use them to support gay marriage licenses.

 

[WinterBorn]

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

No, you did not. None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage. Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means. I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.

LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.

I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage. That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage. You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?

I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

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.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

Pretend you work for the gov't. And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "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".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.

Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.

If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.

I know you said you are gay, and that's ok. But why do you hate macaroni & cheese?

 

[WinterBorn]

No, you did not. None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage. Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means. I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.

LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.

I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage. That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage. You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?

I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

Pretend you work for the gov't. And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "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".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.

Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.

If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.

You ignorant ass. Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around? No, I did not.

You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.

I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage. Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.

Those are the reasons I support traditional marriage only. Sorry you dont like them. Expected it as a matter of fact. But I'm still waiting for you to use them to support gay marriage licenses.

But they are not reasons for the govt to recognize marriage. Not gay marriage, but any marriage. In other words, give me reasons why the govt should recognize the marriage between a man and a woman. But you have not done that in page after page of your inability to read.

 

[DOTR]

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

No, you did not. None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage. Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means. I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.

LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.

I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage. That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage. You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?

I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

Pretend you work for the gov't. And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "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".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.

Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.

If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.

I know you said you are gay, and that's ok. But why do you hate macaroni & cheese?

Its a repulsive food. But lets try it this way. Tell me you can turn any reason I have for disliking macaroni and cheese into support for macaroni and cheese. Oh wait...you think YOU should tell me why I dislike macaroni and cheese first.
Chump

 

[DOTR]

LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.

I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage. That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage. You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?

I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

Pretend you work for the gov't. And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "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".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.

Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.

If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.

You ignorant ass. Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around? No, I did not.

You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.

I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage. Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.

Those are the reasons I support traditional marriage only. Sorry you dont like them. Expected it as a matter of fact. But I'm still waiting for you to use them to support gay marriage licenses.

But they are not reasons for the govt to recognize marriage. Not gay marriage, but any marriage. In other words, give me reasons why the govt should recognize the marriage between a man and a woman. But you have not done that in page after page of your inability to read.

Of course they are. They are a few of the many reasons I think the government should support traditional marriage exclusively. Some of them are even reasons that those who wrote the laws which gave traditional marriage an exclusive position used.

 

[DOTR]

Ok winterborn. Im feeling sorry for you now. Go ahead and tell me the reason I should say government should support only traditional marriage. Then use that reason to support marriage licenses for two men. Call it a win.

 

[WinterBorn]

I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage. That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage. You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?

I dont have to do anything. YOU dont choose the opposition argument so you can knock it down.

Pretend you work for the gov't. And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "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".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.

Pretend you are a citizen. And you had reasons to oppose gay marriage licenses.

If some guy said he could use any reason you provided for your beliefs as an argument FOR gay marriage licenses and you gave him five of your reasons and he failed to use any of them to support gay marriage licenses then you would be justified thinking him a dunce.

You ignorant ass. Did I ask you for reasons you oppose gay marriage so I could turn them around? No, I did not.

You are simply pathetic in your stupidity.

I said give me reasons why a govt should recognize any marriage. Not why you oppose gay marriage, you dimwit.

Those are the reasons I support traditional marriage only. Sorry you dont like them. Expected it as a matter of fact. But I'm still waiting for you to use them to support gay marriage licenses.

But they are not reasons for the govt to recognize marriage. Not gay marriage, but any marriage. In other words, give me reasons why the govt should recognize the marriage between a man and a woman. But you have not done that in page after page of your inability to read.

Of course they are. They are a few of the many reasons I think the government should support traditional marriage exclusively. Some of them are even reasons that those who wrote the laws which gave traditional marriage an exclusive position used.

You are an idiot. No one who wrote the laws used those as reasons.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ok winterborn. Im feeling sorry for you now. Go ahead and tell me the reason I should say government should support only traditional marriage. Then use that reason to support marriage licenses for two men. Call it a win.

You have already said that I despise legal marriage and that my goal is the destruction of marriage. Now you want me to give you reasons why the govt should support traditional marriage?

Have you forgotten I disagree with govt involvement in marriage? You are the one who advocates for the govt to control marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

What is the allure for you in kicking puppies?

There is no 'allure' in pointing out the facts- and the facts are that polygamy is as old as marriage. It even existed in the Bible.

But I am glad you mentioned 'chattel' because historically women in Western until recently were chattel- to their fathers first, and then to their husbands.

Marriage law changed over time so women were no longer chattel because Western society had matured and no longer considered women to be second class citizens. Just as Western society has matured so that we no longer consider homosexuals to be second class citizens- unlike those backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies

Why are Conservatives against marriage law changing to reflect our mature society and want our marriage laws to be more like those backwards Muslim or primitive tribal societies?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So that was the reason why society forbade mixed race marriages.........and that is your rational for denying marriage to gay couples?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Wrong.

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)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

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.

You haven't read the Old Testament have you.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination.

Because you find it yucky.

 

[Syriusly]

[d (2) are aimed at weakening marriage.

Hmmmm so couples wanting to get married- are aiming at weakening marriage?

How was your marriage weakened because Joe and Jim can get married now?

 

[Tennyson]

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.

Same sex marriage rights were not 'created' by the Supreme Court.

That you think our Supreme Court ruling equals Putin's dictatorship just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Same-sex marriage rights were created by the Supreme Court with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over a state’s law or a state’s constitution. If there was a remote chance of jurisdiction, it would be limited to an Article I enumerated power under the supremacy clause, and there is nothing in Article I that comes close to congressional power over marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for the Obergefell ruling because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights; substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment regarded only judicial proceedings.

 

[yiostheoy]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

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.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

The SCOTUS deciding 5 to 4 on this issue simply means there is no reasonable answer either way, only a political answer.

So why are morons here arguing about it?

Just to hear themselves talking obviously.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia