Gay Marriage Plebiscite

[Dogmaphobe]

What's wrong with same sex marriage?

Why can't they be just as miserable as the rest of us?

 

[thetor]

An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.

Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh

 

[anotherlife]

An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.

Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh

Yes, but in this thread, the contribution of gays to eliminate marriages is the question.

 

[thetor]

An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.

Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh

Yes, but in this thread, the contribution of gays to eliminate marriages is the question.

Another,do you mean marriages between a man and woman?

 

[Syriusly]

Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.

Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......

yes yes I know. As I said Americans cant be allowed to self govern. They mess it up...right? And liberal oligarchs have to fix it by ignoring their votes.
Must be so tiresome being a liberal elite and constantly having to undo what the American people wrongly want.

Shame you hate the Constitution so much that you think that Americans should be able to ignore it.

Must have really pissed you off when the Supreme Court overturned those state laws forbidding mixed race marriages....

Race and sex are not even in the same ballpark. One is a cosmetic difference, there other involved the radical re-definition of a contract that goes back millennia and has always involved opposite sex individuals, (even when in plurality).

Yet in both cases the rational was for the exact same reason- equal protection for Americans.

What you want is your cake and to eat it too- to argue that the Supreme Court was right to overturn State marriage laws when they restricted the right for a couple to marry because of race- but that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn a state marriage law when they restricted the right for a couple to marry because of their gender.

Either the Supreme Court has the power/authority under the Constitution- or it doesn't- and if it doesn't- there are still lots of people who were legally married as biracial couples only because the Supreme Court overturned those laws.

 

[Syriusly]

An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.

Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh

Yes, but in this thread, the contribution of gays to eliminate marriages is the question.

I am pretty sure that gays are not going to eliminate marriage- since they have been fighting to have the same right to marry as everyone else.

Don't blame your own successful or failed marriage- on gays.

 

[Syriusly]

An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.

I think you are right.
Marriage as an institution has to be eradicated. Gays consider it a constant reminder of their pathology. Feminists consider it an instrument of oppression. Socialists see it as an alternative to dependency. Statists see it as a competing loyalty and a subversive educational conduit for western tradition.

Poor little snowflake. If you can't keep marriage to yourself- you want to break it.

 

[Syriusly]

An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.

A spokesman for the Christian Conservatives declared a few years ago that they really want to make homosexuality illegal in the United States. Opposing gay marriage is just the least of their goals.

 

[anotherlife]

An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.

Rubbish....considering that over 50% of marriages fail,your post is Inane,the "Institution of Marriage " has managed to do that themselves...Duh

Yes, but in this thread, the contribution of gays to eliminate marriages is the question.

I am pretty sure that gays are not going to eliminate marriage- since they have been fighting to have the same right to marry as everyone else.

Don't blame your own successful or failed marriage- on gays.

That is not about marriage rights, it is about financial rights, such as inheritance, insurance, and welfare.

 

[anotherlife]

An LGBT spokesperson declared a few years ago, that gays don't want to marry, the purpose of gay marriage is to take down the institution of marriage categorically for everyone once for all.

A spokesman for the Christian Conservatives declared a few years ago that they really want to make homosexuality illegal in the United States. Opposing gay marriage is just the least of their goals.

Homosexuality is a pathological disorder, and it was removed from the DSM per social policy decision, not scientific research. Usually pathological patients and sick people want to be healed, but not always, homosexuality is one of them.

 

[martybegan]

Must be nice to have a say in government. Here in the US we voted dozens if not hundreds of times to reject this bastardization of marriage. Our rulers decided otherwise.

Hundreds of times.....just like the hundreds of times "we voted" to keep inter-racial marriage illegal.......

yes yes I know. As I said Americans cant be allowed to self govern. They mess it up...right? And liberal oligarchs have to fix it by ignoring their votes.
Must be so tiresome being a liberal elite and constantly having to undo what the American people wrongly want.

Shame you hate the Constitution so much that you think that Americans should be able to ignore it.

Must have really pissed you off when the Supreme Court overturned those state laws forbidding mixed race marriages....

Race and sex are not even in the same ballpark. One is a cosmetic difference, there other involved the radical re-definition of a contract that goes back millennia and has always involved opposite sex individuals, (even when in plurality).

Yet in both cases the rational was for the exact same reason- equal protection for Americans.

What you want is your cake and to eat it too- to argue that the Supreme Court was right to overturn State marriage laws when they restricted the right for a couple to marry because of race- but that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn a state marriage law when they restricted the right for a couple to marry because of their gender.

Either the Supreme Court has the power/authority under the Constitution- or it doesn't- and if it doesn't- there are still lots of people who were legally married as biracial couples only because the Supreme Court overturned those laws.

What you want is to equate race with gender automatically and that simply isn't the case. Restrictions on race for marriage were an artificial construct that happened for social and political reasons. Saying marriage can be between two people of the same gender has no historical precedence at all. It is a radical change that should not have been imposed by the courts except for forcing States to recognize legal marriages from other States.

I say those laws would have been overturned eventually due to changes in the population. Once the Civil Rights Acts removed the block to black political power there would have been no stopping the laws being revoked.

Again, there is plenty of historical context of people outside their race/tribe/clan/caste marrying. SSM is a novel concept from the past 30 years or so that does not fall under the concept of equal protection.