LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[KNB]

No one cares about their private lives. That's the part you dont get.
Your argument is laughable. The product of gross ignorance and laziness. Go get a clue.

So you don't care about their private life? So why not let them make the decision on which consenting adult they want to marry?

If his argument is laughable, why haven't you countered it? Instead just a brief post.

Who is stopping anyone from marrying? TN defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Yet gays get married here every day. I havent seen anyone hauled off to jail yet.
So it isnt about getting married. It's about the money.

What money?

 

[The Rabbi]

They want the right to do something the rest of us don't have.
If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. People will marry their dogs. People will marry their brothers.

What do they want that the rest of us don't have? The right to marry a consenting adult of their choice?

What does marriage mean in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce?

We're not talking marrying people they are related to, we're not talking about something that could harm other people, incest.

But two gay people can't produce children, they're not able to produce babies that have serious problems, unlike brother and sister.

If they are a man, they want to marry a man. I dont have that right. They shouldnt either.
There is no argument against incest if you accept gay marriage.
You're right, gay people cannot produce children. Thus the state has no interest in fostering such relationships.
Thanks for making that point.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you don't care about their private life? So why not let them make the decision on which consenting adult they want to marry?

If his argument is laughable, why haven't you countered it? Instead just a brief post.

Who is stopping anyone from marrying? TN defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Yet gays get married here every day. I havent seen anyone hauled off to jail yet.
So it isnt about getting married. It's about the money.

What money?

You tell me, Einstein.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seriously? That's a clown question, bro.

No, it's a very good question and you seem to be avoiding it.

Let's recap.

In the US people have rights and freedoms. They are free to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others.

How does gay marriage hurt anyone? It doesn't/

They're not going to stop being gay just because they can't marry a gay person.
They can't have kids.
The world has too many people already.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Legally recognized marriages are constructed of a man and a woman. Like I said, if they want something else, give it a name and try to sell it to the state legislatures.

Only, this isn't true.

In South Africa, a country with English as a official language, marriage means something different.

Also in several states it means something different.

So if it were called "gay marriage" and then passed you wouldn't have a problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

Seriously? That's a clown question, bro.

No, it's a very good question and you seem to be avoiding it.

Let's recap.

In the US people have rights and freedoms. They are free to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others.

How does gay marriage hurt anyone? It doesn't/

They're not going to stop being gay just because they can't marry a gay person.
They can't have kids.
The world has too many people already.

Are you a sophomore in high school?
Gays are free to marry. No one is stopping them, last I checked. If you redefine marriage to mean anything then it means nothing.
The world has too few people, not too many.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If they are a man, they want to marry a man. I dont have that right. They shouldnt either.
There is no argument against incest if you accept gay marriage.
You're right, gay people cannot produce children. Thus the state has no interest in fostering such relationships.
Thanks for making that point.

Wait. If gay marriage were legal, you'd have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

There is an argument against incest with gay marriage, I've mentioned it a few times.

Children produced from incest have a high risk factor. This is harming others.

Do you think the state fosters marriages so people can have children. Does this mean unmarried people can't produce children? Damn it, and I've been using condoms all these years when I had no need to.

 

[KNB]

Who is stopping anyone from marrying? TN defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Yet gays get married here every day. I havent seen anyone hauled off to jail yet.
So it isnt about getting married. It's about the money.

What money?

You tell me, Einstein.

No, actually you tell me. You were the one who said that gays want to get married because "it's about the money." What money are you talking about?

 

[OKTexas]

The equal but separate bull shit doesn't apply here, why, because gays are not prohibited from getting married. Your argument that treating them the same as everyone else isn't good enough, somehow not true equality, that's bullshit.

If you pass a law that defines legal marriage as being between one man and one woman, then gay and lesbian couples can't legally get married. That means that they are prohibited from getting married. That is not equality under the law. That is due only to Christians using public laws to enforce their small-minded, outdated religious dogma on secular society in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Religion has nothing to do with it, it's called biology. And your saying they can't marry is bullshit, they have been getting married form the dawn of time, they just have been following the rules and marrying someone who is biologically compatible. That is equality.

 

[The Rabbi]

If they are a man, they want to marry a man. I dont have that right. They shouldnt either.
There is no argument against incest if you accept gay marriage.
You're right, gay people cannot produce children. Thus the state has no interest in fostering such relationships.
Thanks for making that point.

Wait. If gay marriage were legal, you'd have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

There is an argument against incest with gay marriage, I've mentioned it a few times.

Children produced from incest have a high risk factor. This is harming others.

Do you think the state fosters marriages so people can have children. Does this mean unmarried people can't produce children? Damn it, and I've been using condoms all these years when I had no need to.

Two people want to marry, why should risk play into it? We dont prohibit people who are Tay Sachs carriers from marrying (I'm married to one, btw).
Again, you make the classic fallacy that just because it isn't 100% it is zero. Most couples who get married have children. The fact that some do not is irrelevant.

 

[The Rabbi]

What money?

You tell me, Einstein.

No, actually you tell me. You were the one who said that gays want to get married because "it's about the money." What money are you talking about?

The marital benefits that accrue legally. Or did you miss that part of the gay agenda?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you a sophomore in high school?
Gays are free to marry. No one is stopping them, last I checked. If you redefine marriage to mean anything then it means nothing.
The world has too few people, not too many.

Let's go back some years before Brown V. Board of Education.

Black people were allowed to sit on the bus. They could sit at the back. They were allowed to marry, any consenting adult black woman.

The Supreme Court said this is nonsense and not fair and not equal.

Do you agree with me on this or not?

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you a sophomore in high school?
Gays are free to marry. No one is stopping them, last I checked. If you redefine marriage to mean anything then it means nothing.
The world has too few people, not too many.

Let's go back some years before Brown V. Board of Education.

Black people were allowed to sit on the bus. They could sit at the back. They were allowed to marry, any consenting adult black woman.

The Supreme Court said this is nonsense and not fair and not equal.

Do you agree with me on this or not?

I agree we are not discussing black people.
Next deflection, please.

 

[KNB]

The equal but separate bull shit doesn't apply here, why, because gays are not prohibited from getting married. Your argument that treating them the same as everyone else isn't good enough, somehow not true equality, that's bullshit.

If you pass a law that defines legal marriage as being between one man and one woman, then gay and lesbian couples can't legally get married. That means that they are prohibited from getting married. That is not equality under the law. That is due only to Christians using public laws to enforce their small-minded, outdated religious dogma on secular society in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Religion has nothing to do with it, it's called biology. And your saying they can't marry is bullshit, they have been getting married form the dawn of time, they just have been following the rules and marrying someone who is biologically compatible. That is equality.

You obviously don't know what equality means. If you pass a law which states that legally recognized marriages are only between one man and one woman, then homosexual and lesbian couples are prohibited from having a legally recognized marriage, because a homosexual couple has one man and one man, not one man and one woman. Therefore, that is not equality under the law for the homosexual couple.

How do you get equality from passing a law which specifically forbids equality?

 

[OKTexas]

Legally recognized marriages are constructed of a man and a woman. Like I said, if they want something else, give it a name and try to sell it to the state legislatures.

Only, this isn't true.

In South Africa, a country with English as a official language, marriage means something different.

Also in several states it means something different.

So if it were called "gay marriage" and then passed you wouldn't have a problem.

You want a license that says "Gay Marriage License" on top, I don't care. But I guarantee gays would not accept them, because they want society to bend to their will. I say fuck em.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you pass a law that defines legal marriage as being between one man and one woman, then gay and lesbian couples can't legally get married. That means that they are prohibited from getting married. That is not equality under the law. That is due only to Christians using public laws to enforce their small-minded, outdated religious dogma on secular society in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Religion has nothing to do with it, it's called biology. And your saying they can't marry is bullshit, they have been getting married form the dawn of time, they just have been following the rules and marrying someone who is biologically compatible. That is equality.

You obviously don't know what equality means. If you pass a law which states that legally recognized marriages are only between one man and one woman, then homosexual and lesbian couples are prohibited from having a legally recognized marriage, because a homosexual couple has one man and one man, not one man and one woman. Therefore, that is not equality under the law for the homosexual couple.

How do you get equality from passing a law which specifically forbids equality?

How about a law that prohibits marriage between two consanguinous people? Between a man and a sheep? You are denying people the right to marry the animal of their choice. It is inequality.
Get it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because the state has a compelling interest in it. Because marriage and the family are the bedrock of society. Because the 10thA reserves to states rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Ergo states have the power to define marriage, not some unelected judge somewhere.

50% divorce rate is the bedrock of US society? Damn, absolutely screwed.

So now you're using the 10th amendment to make your point, and ignoring the 9th, and 14th, and the Supreme Court decisions on this? Well done.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How about a law that prohibits marriage between two consanguinous people? Between a man and a sheep? You are denying people the right to marry the animal of their choice. It is inequality.
Get it?

Can a sheep consent?

 

[The Rabbi]

Legally recognized marriages are constructed of a man and a woman. Like I said, if they want something else, give it a name and try to sell it to the state legislatures.

Only, this isn't true.

In South Africa, a country with English as a official language, marriage means something different.

Also in several states it means something different.

So if it were called "gay marriage" and then passed you wouldn't have a problem.

You want a license that says "Gay Marriage License" on top, I don't care. But I guarantee gays would not accept them, because they want society to bend to their will. I say fuck em.

No they will not. The idea of domestic partnerships was floated. It would have solved the very real issues that gay couples have. But the gay community rejected it. Because they are not interested in gay marriage. They are interested in no marriage. THey are interested in tearing down norms in society and any institution that establishes those norms. Look what they've done with universities and the military.

 

[KNB]

You tell me, Einstein.

No, actually you tell me. You were the one who said that gays want to get married because "it's about the money." What money are you talking about?

The marital benefits that accrue legally. Or did you miss that part of the gay agenda?

So gay and lesbian couples want the same marital benefits that are afforded to married heterosexual couples? Why is that a bad thing?