Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Syriusly]

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.

At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public.

Syriusly Sneekin Faun
Since it seems clear you don't agree with removing the social benefits but want to keep those managed by govt, what do you think of the idea of doing the same with spiritual healing prayer. And allowing tolerance and inclusion of that expression and practice, including rresearch and development so this can be offered to more of the public as a free choice. Spiritual healing works naturally in conjunction with science and medicine and doesn't work by coercion or force. So there is no imposition involved..

I have no idea what you are talking about.

And that has nothing to do with marriage. You keep bouncing all over the place.

 

[Syriusly]

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...

Yes, some people don't eat pork - but they are people too! What is the reason to force them to eat pork only because someone, eating pork, want "to play in muslim too"?

Is any of that supposed to make any sense or supposed to have anything to do with my post?

No one is forcing anyone to eat pork.

Nor is anyone forcing others not to eat pork just because millions of Americans think it is wrong to eat pork.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...=

How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?

My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?

 

[Syriusly]

Religious folks consider, gay marriage profaned marriage sacrament. Gay marriage - it's just a senseless imitation of one of main Church rituals. Does it mean, gay marriage is the same with marriage of Maria and Josef? Can you imagine the insult, you making to christians... In fact, it's an extremism...

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:.

And you just ignored what I said.

As I am now going to ignore what you said.

We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.

• We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
• We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
• We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
• We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.

See the pattern here?

 

[Syriusly]

Emily

What if I OBJECTED to your marriage for whatever twisted reason

Should the government accommodate my objections out of a sense of being fair to everyone's concerns

1. to keep govt and other people out of marriage, that's why I'm saying to keep marriage out of govt!

PRECISELY rightwinger!

2. and yes, people do not have to recognize each other's "marriage" as in social or spiritual relations as a "couple" in order to honor the civil contracts and rights. Lot of families go through that, it happens. If a father does not accept his daughter marrying some guy he doesn't approve of, the govt cannot make him accept that guy as a "husband." if there is a financial contract, such as the guy owns the car or house his daughter is living in with her husband, of course, the father respects the legal and financial ownership that is secular. But does not have to respect someone "socially as a husband" if the father just doesn't respect that, that's his choice! And it doesn't have to interfere with respecting the guardianship and legal contractual obligations or duties that the guy has with the children. He can still be recognized as legal guardian without being accepted "socially" as the "husband" which is a personal choice.

So for the civil contracts and legal guardianships, that's a secular role. But no, the govt cannot make anyone recognize a social relationship any more than it can make you accept Jesus or God. that's personal choice and not the govt's business.

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

A law that is arrived at by consensus is different in spirit than a law imposed by opposing sides forcing their political will on the other. To make an ironic analogy, rightwinger, it's like the Difference between a marriage by CHOICE or a forced arranged marriage. I'm saying forcing the marriage laws on people where they didn't agree in advance is like a prearranged marriage where the people affected didn't have equal say in it. One partner may be thrilled but the other horrified at the decision. So that coercion causes harm, and it's better to arrive at laws and reforms by consent of all parties affected, especially with sensitive matters!

BTW rightwinger you also asked what harm is done by govt endorsing marriage for all people. the harm is if this isn't established by consent of the people, so it is govt imposing or establishing certain beliefs about marriage FOR the people, instead of the other way, where the people AGREE to form or reform the laws to reflect consent on a policy.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

It is not up to government to impose what is most popular, it is to do what is right. Someone has to defend the rights of the sheep
In this case, the majority does not get to decide who you are allowed to fall in love with and who you are allowed to marry.
If someone says a white man marrying a black woman is "yucky"...it is not up to government to enforce it
Same concept applies if a woman wants to marry another woman

rightwinger
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"

Bullshit. Rights are not determined by peoples' approval and consent. Your rights are not determined by my beliefs. A Christian's rights are not determined by Muslims' beliefs... black peoples' rights are not determined by white peoples' beliefs...

As you pointed out, rights are inalienable. The role of our government is to secure those rights -- just as they have done for gays regarding their right to marry the person of their choice.

Dear Syriusly

When you go through GOVT because that is public and mandatory for everyone,
you are in a sense seeking approval of the public who is supposed to be represented.


Contracts don't work if the people bound by them don't agree to the terms.


Our laws are like that, but collectively between people and govt.
They are contracts but on a larger public scale, so it's even MORE
important to make sure everyone is on the same page so we enforce the same standards and terms.

And again- I refer to Loving v. Virginia.

The foremost law of the United States is the United States Constitution.

No matter whether 'the public' wants to ban gun ownership, or ban synogogues, or ban mixed race marriages- the Constitution does not allow that- because we the citizens of the United States agree that the U.S. Constitution is the premier law of the United States.

Now regarding contracts- a marriage contract is between two people- and they do agree to the terms.

Just because someone else doesn't like that contract between the two people doesn't mean that they get to prevent it.

 

[Sneekin]

Emily said:
No, saying gays can't use the word marriage is like saying Christians can't use the word God or Jesus.

It's in the context of public laws.
When you make public laws, the whole public gets equal say in them because everyone is affected.

So if you don't want to include other people's beliefs, then don't push yours into public laws.
And you don't have to answer to other people equally affected by the laws.

And they also have to include you also!
Both have to agree if these are public laws.
They are social contracts between people.

I made the analogy to marriage -- that partners have to agree to terms of marriage.
You don't write contracts by having one group write up the terms and force it onto others
who are required to be under it since it's a public law.

That's what Obama and Congress did wrong with ACA, created a business contract
with corporate insurance interests and "signed taxpayers up for it" to be responsible for terms
we didn't ALL agree to pay under!

If you are going to change the terms of a contract,
last I checked, all the parties to the contract have to agree to the changes in terms.[/QUOTE]


Sneekin, for the 10th or 20th time, said to Emily:
Emily, you seriously have to stop putting words in my mouth.

YOU are the one that does not wish to include other's beliefs.

I've told you almost 20 times now:

CIVIL MARRIAGE: A contractual union between two people (unrelated, meeting all state and federal requirement).

You want to call it different names for gays, straights, etc, and have it voted on. WRONG. This is current law. PERIOD.

The public did get equal say. They elected representatives who voted on it, and they voted on judges. So you did vote. SCOTUS decided that states like Texas, who claimed it was illegal, was violating the US Constitution. Their DOMA was struck down. I really don't care if you wanted it or not, you still had a vote.

Everyone is affected? If I marry a man, how are YOU affected? If I marry a woman, how are YOU affected? I realize we are up to almost 10 times you were asked, but you've never said how YOU were affected.

The entire public doesn't get equal say. We are a republic, we elected representatives, and THEY vote. They appoint the judges, who rule on law. Not YOU. And as everyone knows, we don't vote issues that violate constitutional law - which is what YOU REPEATEDLY STATED YOU WANT TO DO.

Emily, ALL LAWS are PUBLIC. You can't have a 1.0 blood alcohol and me have the same, and only one gets charged with being drunk. The law is PUBLIC it applies to ALL. You don't have to agree, I don't have to agree, it's settled case law by representatives that you, or your parents or other ancestors already voted on.

You are the only person demanding terms be written up that differ between gays and straights and anything else. There are already 1138 regs/laws in place governing marriage, and that excludes the actual issues of licensing, familial relationships, etc. 1338 tax and other legal issues. Parties don't have to agree to terms of marriage. If you are speaking of issues like monogamy, one would think that would be settled long before a marriage would have occurred, but based on the fact that close to 1/2 the marriages end in divorce, it seems like the terms of marriage aren't agreed upon.

Another lie about Obama. Obama proposed a form of the ACA. The CONGRESS, who YOU ELECTED, tweaked/changed it to meet the needs of their constituents. They didn't sign me up for it, I already had insurance, Emily. In fact, out of the 322 Million people, only 47 million or less fell into the category of not having insurance, and only 20 million signed up for it.

Again, you most certainly did agree to it - Ted Cruz, Louis Gohmert, etc are STILL in office, you sure didn't vote them out of office......

You fail to grasp the legal and constitutional republic concept, and laws and government in general.

The ACA is a US healthcare reform law that expands and improves access to care and curbs spending through regulations and taxes.

Contrary to what you think, YOU personally don't get to vote on national laws.

Since it's a law (versus a contract), each person does not have to agree to any changes.

If you buy a vehicle (Cadillac), and gas is 1.00 a gallon, it doesn't mean that the price can't go up. When was the last time you negotiated price at the station? I remember price wars in the 60's where it was 25 cents a gallon - you know, I've gone to the clerk at the station earlier today, told them that, and they said so what - prices have gone up. Sounds like you have problem with free enterprise and trickle down economics - which you were pushing for in your last rant.

Learn about laws and personal contracts. Here's the definition of a contract - your claim the ACA is a contract is disproven......

A contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound.

The ACA was viewed as both a mandate and a tax during the times it was argued (successfully) in front of the SCOTUS. It doesn't meet the definition above, which is the same definition I learned in the 70's in school, and college, and in the 80's to present in continuing education. Another EPIC FAIL.

 

[Sbiker]

So many letters! Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....

So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...

Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.

Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin

Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.

I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?

Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...

Really? What would those SSM problems be? Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused. Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together. So have at it. Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc. I really don't care. But Marriage is a SECULAR term here. Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people. PERIOD. Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman. Grasp that yet?

I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60. I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt". They were lesbians. The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems. Well established, good incomes, etc. Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems. Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes. The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc. It's been checked. This has gone on for years. Get a Clue.

You asked

Really? What would those SSM problems be?

and answered

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

 

[Syriusly]

So many letters! Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....

So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...

Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.

Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin

Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.

I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?

Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...

Really? What would those SSM problems be? Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused. Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together. So have at it. Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc. I really don't care. But Marriage is a SECULAR term here. Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people. PERIOD. Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman. Grasp that yet?

I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60. I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt". They were lesbians. The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems. Well established, good incomes, etc. Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems. Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes. The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc. It's been checked. This has gone on for years. Get a Clue.

You asked

Really? What would those SSM problems be?

and answered

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

 

[Sbiker]

[Q
There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...=

How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?

My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?

Idyllic picture... Let's continue to paint it.

Today Emily and Trisha perform legal marriage - well, let them to live happy.

Tomorrow they want children. Any parentless children - ok, it's good, let them to have.

Day after - they don't want children with unknown genetics. They want one of YOUR children. Why not - it's just another step to keep their rights.

Day after - they have a lobby to adopt law for obligatory homosexual practice. You dont' want it? "How do you know, you don't want, it's just a stereotype... Prove, you don't have stereotypes, make a homo-sex regularily"! Offcorse, it's for chilldren too...

And while you would dispute this "problems", struggling for your rights and so on - your country got a lot of islamists migrants, which don't follow this laws "because they don't know about them".

Unbelieveable? Just look at Europe with a little more attention

 

[Sbiker]

So many letters! Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....

So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...

Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.

Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin

Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.

I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?

Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...

Really? What would those SSM problems be? Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused. Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together. So have at it. Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc. I really don't care. But Marriage is a SECULAR term here. Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people. PERIOD. Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman. Grasp that yet?

I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60. I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt". They were lesbians. The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems. Well established, good incomes, etc. Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems. Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes. The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc. It's been checked. This has gone on for years. Get a Clue.

You asked

Really? What would those SSM problems be?

and answered

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
There's no problem for gays to have any sexual relations they want. There's no any problems for them (especially, because they're "artistic" and "creative") to develop own, gay rituals for marriage and so on (I doubt, married gays really to plan live married all remained life - as tradition of marriage generally need ). Instead of it - they performing lawyer aggression against tradition forms of marriage. They no need to have own - they only want to destroy something, they don't have. That'a a main problem, as I see...=

How are gays 'destroying' anything by spending years trying to partcipate in marriage?

My marriage was not destroyed because Emily and Trisha can now legally marry- was yours?

Idyllic picture... Let's continue to paint it.

Today Emily and Trisha perform legal marriage - well, let them to live happy.

Tomorrow they want children. Any parentless children - ok, it's good, let them to have.

Day after - they don't want children with unknown genetics. They want one of YOUR children. Why not - it's just another step to keep their rights.

Day after - they have a lobby to adopt law for obligatory homosexual practice. You dont' want it? "How do you know, you don't want, it's just a stereotype... Prove, you don't have stereotypes, make a homo-sex regularily"! Offcorse, it's for chilldren too...

Today Jim and Sally are legally married.
Tomorrow they want children- but Jim is infertile so they use a sperm donor- ok, it's good, let them.
Day after- they don't want children with unknown genetics- Jim and Sally want one of your children. Why not- is just another step to keep their rights.
Day after- they have a lobby to adopt a law prohibiting homosexual practice- oh wait- Jim and Sally did that years ago, until the courts overturned Jim and Sally telling Americans what kind of sex we are allowed to have.

Moral: Allowing Jim and Sally to marry will mean they are coming to take your children away.

 

[Syriusly]

So many letters! Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....

So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...

Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.

Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin

Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.

I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?

Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...

Really? What would those SSM problems be? Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused. Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together. So have at it. Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc. I really don't care. But Marriage is a SECULAR term here. Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people. PERIOD. Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman. Grasp that yet?

I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60. I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt". They were lesbians. The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems. Well established, good incomes, etc. Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems. Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes. The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc. It's been checked. This has gone on for years. Get a Clue.

You asked

Really? What would those SSM problems be?

and answered

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after

First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.

 

[Faun]

I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...

This is one of the dumbest things I ever read here. Sorry, it just is.

<smh>

 

[Sneekin]

So many letters! Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers

That's an offensive statement, seeing how over 90 percent of sexual abuse occurs in heterosexual "traditional" families.....

So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...

Wrong - the Latin word was in use LONG BEFORE the origination of Christianity - several millenia, I'm sure.

Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin

Wow - you have so little education, and have told no truths.

I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?

Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...

Really? What would those SSM problems be? Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused. Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together. So have at it. Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc. I really don't care. But Marriage is a SECULAR term here. Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people. PERIOD. Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman. Grasp that yet?

I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60. I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt". They were lesbians. The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems. Well established, good incomes, etc. Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems. Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes. The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc. It's been checked. This has gone on for years. Get a Clue.

You asked

Really? What would those SSM problems be?

and answered

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after

Not even close. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; c. 203 – March 11, 222), was Roman emperor from 218 to 222. Child emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband. He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens. You'll note he referred to his driver as his HUSBAND, which requires marriage. Latin was the language of the Romans......ergo, marriage in this case refers to male on male. This time frame is prior to the Islamic world (400 years later). This in and of itself throws out your argument regarding religion, as well as thousands of years before that, during the time of the pharaohs, there were both same sex and opposite sex weddings.

You ramble on about 2001 - you do realize same sex couples lived together and raised children - I'm aware of several back when I was a child of the 60's.....

Here's a thought, stick with one topic. You can't whine about gays corrupting children when they are raising them, and not acknowledge that there were gay relationships before 2001.....talk about disingenuous....

 

[Sneekin]

I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable...

This is one of the dumbest things I ever read here. Sorry, it just is.

<smh>

Not to mention, completely untrue. Sbiker, perhaps you could tell us what Rabbi told you that story? Did he also sell you a bridge to Brooklyn, as well?

 

[Sneekin]

So many letters! Now I see, I'm discussing with lawyers

So what? (c) Metallica. Children really have a lot of problems in traditional families - so, let's add them another problem from homosexual? And 90% - it's because a part of this families so large, but probability of sexual abuse in homosexual families much higher...

Latin word was "Mas". "Marriage" formed in English, inherited from Latin

I could to predict much of your responces, but trying to solve problem not from lawyer sight of view, but breaking stereotypes. There are a lot of problems in both situation - to allow heterosexual of marriage or to forbid. And some of thes problems we really don't able to comprehend, because it concerns a large society phenomenons. What if our salvation will lead to demographic catastrophe in 2nd or in 3rd generation? It could be good for us, but what do you say about our grandchildren?

Maybe, it's just because US didn't have an enormous demographic losses from external aggression during all XX century, like we are...

Really? What would those SSM problems be? Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused. Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together. So have at it. Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc. I really don't care. But Marriage is a SECULAR term here. Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people. PERIOD. Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman. Grasp that yet?

I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60. I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt". They were lesbians. The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems. Well established, good incomes, etc. Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems. Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes. The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc. It's been checked. This has gone on for years. Get a Clue.

You asked

Really? What would those SSM problems be?

and answered

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after

First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.

Syriusly, that's not even true any more. There are lots of gay Muslims, including Gay Imams - right here in the US of A - and gay Muslims get married either civilly or by an Imam.

Back story: Imam Daayiee Abdullah is the first America’s openly gay Muslim, and he performs same-sex marriages for gay Muslims. (published 2013)

I think you'll make his head explode though.

 

[Syriusly]

Really? What would those SSM problems be? Certainly not the same as the 90 percent of children being abused. Here's a thought - instead of making up your facts, back them up with actual facts.

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.
You and Emily are looking for the word MATRIMONY - a religious ceremony joining two people together. So have at it. Don't get married, just as for matrimony, give up all of your tax benefits, decision making, protections for spouse and children, inheritance, survivorship, etc. I really don't care. But Marriage is a SECULAR term here. Your church co-opted it, but we are talking CIVIL MARRIAGE. CIVIL MARRIAGE is between two people. PERIOD. Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or Man/Woman. Grasp that yet?

I am breaking your stereotypes. I'm almost 60. I've got friends that were raised by their mom and "Aunt". They were lesbians. The kids (gen 1) are 60ish, no problems. Well established, good incomes, etc. Their children - 40ish - same, no different problems. Their children (some 20ish) - no problems, out of college, working, good incomes. The few of them with children have not claimed any problems with their lesbian mom/grandmom/great grandmom etc. It's been checked. This has gone on for years. Get a Clue.

You asked

Really? What would those SSM problems be?

and answered

Marriage - created thousands of years before Christianity, or even Judaism.

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after

First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.

Syriusly, that's not even true any more. There are lots of gay Muslims, including Gay Imams - right here in the US of A - and gay Muslims get married either civilly or by an Imam.

Back story: Imam Daayiee Abdullah is the first America’s openly gay Muslim, and he performs same-sex marriages for gay Muslims. (published 2013)

I think you'll make his head explode though.

I was referring to the Muslim countries of the world. I am not aware of a single country where Islam is the official religion that allows 'gay marriage'.

Muslims, straight or gay, can marry who they choose in the United States.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:.

And you just ignored what I said.

As I am now going to ignore what you said.

We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.

• We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
• We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
• We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
• We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.

See the pattern here?

Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.

 

[Sneekin]

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:.

And you just ignored what I said.

As I am now going to ignore what you said.

We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.

• We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
• We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
• We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
• We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.

See the pattern here?

Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.

Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract. Why can't you just admit that? The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE. It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT. Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.

 

[Sneekin]

You asked
and answered

And if you say, there were a lot of societies, allowing gay marriage - it will be true. So - which of this societies are living NOW? If you don't believe in religion and want scientific approach... I would believe, SSM is progressive, useful and right - show me not a loser's example of it!

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after

First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.

Syriusly, that's not even true any more. There are lots of gay Muslims, including Gay Imams - right here in the US of A - and gay Muslims get married either civilly or by an Imam.

Back story: Imam Daayiee Abdullah is the first America’s openly gay Muslim, and he performs same-sex marriages for gay Muslims. (published 2013)

I think you'll make his head explode though.

I was referring to the Muslim countries of the world. I am not aware of a single country where Islam is the official religion that allows 'gay marriage'.

Muslims, straight or gay, can marry who they choose in the United States.

Muslims can marry whoever they want in many other countries, however. What you are saying is the same as saying Catholics can only marry opposite sex Catholics in the Country of Vatican City. Any country that allows SSM allows the marriage between LGBT Muslims.