Legal Gay Marriage in the United States- yes or no?

[Syriusly]

If you object, do not attend the weddings, send no gifts, forget anniversaries(.)

And the kids they adopt you can treat in their adult lives.

Why would children need treatment with two loving parents?

Only a moron thinks there is no difference between a father and mother.

Greatest experiment on children in human history is underway.

And if one parent splits, dies, or is uninterested? Are the children doomed?

Just look at inner city black youth if you want to know what single parent does.

I look at my fantastic niece to see what a single parent does.

Of course it would be better if heterosexual parents stopped abandoning their kids.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you can't find the Bible in the church- its not the churches fault.

Either its god telling you you are not worthy- or the more likely answer it is a mental defect that prevents you from seeing anything you don't believe in.

That's an almost-verbatim accounts of something that my own church has sometimes taught that Satan tries to tell us. It is Satan that wants us to avoid church, avoid any form of spiritual activity or benefit, because we are “unworthy”. All of us sin, and all of us need whatever help we can get to overcome sin. To tell us that because of our sin, we are unworthy to go to church, is like telling us that because we are hungry, we are unworthy to eat.

 

[Syriusly]

If you object, do not attend the weddings, send no gifts, forget anniversaries(.)

And the kids they adopt you can treat in their adult lives.

Why would children need treatment with two loving parents?

Only a moron thinks there is no difference between a father and mother.

Only a moron thinks that a child raised by a single parent or by two gay parents will need treatment.

And only a true moron would think that means that anyone is saying that there is no difference between a father and a mother.

 

[WorldWatcher]

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

It's not a question of what "I" would argue, we are discussing the law and not personal opinion.

Currently there is no challenge on laws based on how close a family relationship exists, such laws remain valid and don't have basis (except for archaic language that may not have been updated yet in view of same-sex Civil Marriage) for nullification because they can be applied equally irregardless of race, gender, or age (once a person has reached a legal age of consent in a given State).



>>>>

Mother fucking (pun intended) coward assed cop out.

Sorry you can't have a reasonable discussion about the law without injecting emotion.



>>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

If you can't find the Bible in the church- its not the churches fault.

Either its god telling you you are not worthy- or the more likely answer it is a mental defect that prevents you from seeing anything you don't believe in.

That's an almost-verbatim accounts of something that my own church has sometimes taught that Satan tries to tell us. It is Satan that wants us to avoid church, avoid any form of spiritual activity or benefit, because we are “unworthy”. All of us sin, and all of us need whatever help we can get to overcome sin. To tell us that because of our sin, we are unworthy to go to church, is like telling us that because we are hungry, we are unworthy to eat.

In your case- I believe you believe that Satan is talking to you.

 

[Peach]

My father was out to sea a lot, serving this nation, when I was very young. I was as close to him as I was my mother.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Only a moron thinks there is no difference between a father and mother.

Greatest experiment on children in human history is underway.

And the results (which ought not be at all surprising) are beginning to come in…

Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting

 

[Chuz Life]

Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?

[Correction] Short answer is Yes, however I understand you trying to lay limits on the question, but your attempt to add absolute limits are artificial and not a function of the law (nor of common sense).

For example:

#1 If the conditions are implemented in a Constitutional manner, applied equally - Yes. For example, States set age limits that are applied to all applicants. As another example many states required blood tests as part of obtaining a Marriage License (IIRC Mississippi was the last to repeal it 6 or 7 years ago). They are/were Constitutional because the laws were generally applicable and not written to exclude certain persons or segments of the population.

#2 If the conditions are implemented in an Unconstitutional manner, applied in a discriminatory manner - No. For example, States limited Civil Marriage based on race composition of the couple, those were held to be unconstitutional. States also limited Civil Marriage based on the biological sex of the couple, those were also held to be unconstitutional. As a third example, the Federal government attempted to pick and choose which legally recognized Civil Marriages it would recognize for Federal purposes, that discriminatory action by a section of government was also found to be unconstitutional.

*****************************************************************************

In the cases of #2, it was a branch of the government the found action unconstitutional and so nullified the actions of other branches of government we those actions were tested against the Constitution.

So unconstitutional actions by one branch of government were ended by another branch of government - so in reality it was still the government that determined the boundaries that could be used.

Remember, "government" does not equal just Legislative Branch. Executive and Judicial are also branches of government.



>>>>

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

The million dollar question they refuse to confront. They want to say some groups of adults can’t marry simply because they have self generated a line of morality. Even incest is on the table. Takes 8 generations of incest before genetic problems begin to occur.

Its the straw man that people who don't approve of gay marriage love.

That ignorant comment shows how little you know about identifying fallacies. All I did was ask a question which you are free to answer with any line of reason you want to use.

There is no straw man being constructed unless you build one yourself in your answer.

So, I ask again.. . On what basis would you deny two brothers or two sisters their right to marry one another?

 

[Chuz Life]

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

It's not a question of what "I" would argue, we are discussing the law and not personal opinion.

Currently there is no challenge on laws based on how close a family relationship exists, such laws remain valid and don't have basis (except for archaic language that may not have been updated yet in view of same-sex Civil Marriage) for nullification because they can be applied equally irregardless of race, gender, or age (once a person has reached a legal age of consent in a given State).



>>>>

Mother fucking (pun intended) coward assed cop out.

Sorry you can't have a reasonable discussion about the law without injecting emotion.



>>>>>

Sure you can.

Just focus.

 

[Syriusly]

Was it that? Or was it that they couldn't get recognition?

A different-sex couple can go to a religious organization and get a Religious Marriage without civil recognition so that wasn't an issue. It was illegal for them to enter into a Civil Marriage, recognition of Religious Marriages were never an issue as a function of law. It was the Civil Law that was the issue.


>>>>

Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?

The Government can and does.

In the United States marriage laws are set by states. But Americans also have a right to marriage. States cannot arbitrarily take away that right.

Which is why States have restricted marriage variously at times- preventing mixed race marriages, stopping plural marriages, stopping incestuous marriages, setting age restrictions- and family connections restrictions.

Such restrictions have to comply with the Constitution- and when the state restricts marriage- with no compelling argument- the Supreme Court has overturned those laws- 4 times now.

1. Loving v. Virginia- mixed race marriage bans
2. Bans on parents marrying when they owed child support
3. Bans on prisoners marrying
4. Obergefell- bans on same gender marriage.

Age restrictions, restrictions against plural marriage, and restrictions on marriage between close relatives still are completely legal.

Could anyone challenge these? Of course they could- and IF the state cannot provide a compelling reason why they ban 8 year old's from marrying- the state might lose.

But shouldn't they lose if the state can't come up with a compelling reason? (hint children cannot provide consent is a compelling reason)_

 

[MaryL]

Nope. The only thing that matters is popular consensus. And that is swayed by wherever the wind blows. Not necessity. Facts can be adjusted to fit.

 

[Syriusly]

Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?

[Correction] Short answer is Yes, however I understand you trying to lay limits on the question, but your attempt to add absolute limits are artificial and not a function of the law (nor of common sense).

For example:

#1 If the conditions are implemented in a Constitutional manner, applied equally - Yes. For example, States set age limits that are applied to all applicants. As another example many states required blood tests as part of obtaining a Marriage License (IIRC Mississippi was the last to repeal it 6 or 7 years ago). They are/were Constitutional because the laws were generally applicable and not written to exclude certain persons or segments of the population.

#2 If the conditions are implemented in an Unconstitutional manner, applied in a discriminatory manner - No. For example, States limited Civil Marriage based on race composition of the couple, those were held to be unconstitutional. States also limited Civil Marriage based on the biological sex of the couple, those were also held to be unconstitutional. As a third example, the Federal government attempted to pick and choose which legally recognized Civil Marriages it would recognize for Federal purposes, that discriminatory action by a section of government was also found to be unconstitutional.

*****************************************************************************

In the cases of #2, it was a branch of the government the found action unconstitutional and so nullified the actions of other branches of government we those actions were tested against the Constitution.

So unconstitutional actions by one branch of government were ended by another branch of government - so in reality it was still the government that determined the boundaries that could be used.

Remember, "government" does not equal just Legislative Branch. Executive and Judicial are also branches of government.



>>>>

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

The million dollar question they refuse to confront. They want to say some groups of adults can’t marry simply because they have self generated a line of morality. Even incest is on the table. Takes 8 generations of incest before genetic problems begin to occur.

Its the straw man that people who don't approve of gay marriage love.

So, I ask again.. . On what basis would you deny two brothers or two sisters their right to marry one another?

On the basis of the law.

The real question is not on what basis would I deny two siblings- gender is irrelevant- from marrying- the question is what basis would the state ban it.

States universally ban marriage between siblings. You can challenge that ban in order to marry your brother. If the State can't provide a compelling reason why you shouldn't marry your brother- then why should it be illegal?

So I ask you- do you think that the state should have laws that there is no compelling interest to have?

Or should the state be required to demonstrate that there is a need for a law?

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. The only thing that matters is popular consensus. And that is swayed by wherever the wind blows. Not necessity. Facts can be adjusted to fit.

That is Trump's world.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Per capita, men commit more crimes than women.

Per capita, straight men commit more rape than gay men.

Per capita, homophobic bigots have tiny dicks.

Deal with it.

And yet, per capita, it's only filthy faggots who are concerned enough with other mens' dicks to make such an absurd assumption about them.

Deal with it.

Per capita the reason why homophobic bigots are so obsessed with sex is because of their tiny dicks

You're the one who is even bringing it up. Now who is it that is obsessed?

I think it is quite clear that you are vividly demonstrating the principle of psychological projection. There is certainly no way that you would have any knowledge of the size of condition of my genitalia, nor what sexual issues, if any, I might have. You have only your own inadequacies to describe, as you try to attribute them to me.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Of course it would be better if heterosexual parents stopped abandoning their kids.

Of course, yours is the side that is directly responsible for attacking and perverting and undermining the concepts of marriage and family, to the point that it has become socially acceptable for parents to abandon their children.

 

[Syriusly]

Per capita, men commit more crimes than women.

Per capita, straight men commit more rape than gay men.

Per capita, homophobic bigots have tiny dicks.

Deal with it.

And yet, per capita, it's only filthy faggots who are concerned enough with other mens' dicks to make such an absurd assumption about them.

Deal with it.

Per capita the reason why homophobic bigots are so obsessed with sex is because of their tiny dicks

You're the one who is even bringing it up. Now who is it that is obsessed?.

You just keep bringing up sex- you can't even tell the difference between consensual sex or rape of children. Which is really sad.

Why not? Sex perverts are sex perverts. Whether you're into f•••ing children, animals, people of the same sex, unwilling partners, or whatever, it's all the same evil.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course it would be better if heterosexual parents stopped abandoning their kids.

Of course, yours is the side that is directly responsible for attacking and perverting and undermining the concepts of marriage and family, to the point that it has become socially acceptable for parents to abandon their children.

Sorry chump- your side was busy abandoning their kids for the last 200 years- now you want to blame it on the gays.

 

[MaryL]

I voted NO, we don't NEED gay marriage anymore than a fish NEEDS a bicycle. But the left, and gays, they NEED it to legitimize their mindset. We don't need to legitimize THAT, either.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sorry chump- your side was busy abandoning their kids for the last 200 years- now you want to blame it on the gays.

That is a lie, and you know damn well that it is a lie.

Yours is the side that, for generations, has been attacking marriage and family, and promoting increasingly sick and immoral forms of sexual perversion and irresponsibility. Yours is the side that is wholly responsible for this mess that it has created, and mine is the side that has been fighting to mitigate it. You do not get to blame us for the results of your willful evil.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry chump- your side was busy abandoning their kids for the last 200 years- now you want to blame it on the gays.

That is a lie, and you know damn well that it is a lie.

Yours is the side that, for generations, has been attacking marriage and family,l.

Unlike you- my side has been the side of American families, and marriage- and person freedom.

Your side has been the side of repression, oppression and dysfunctional families and fathers abandoning their families.