Now that 'gay marriage' is real, can we talk?

[Boss]

Okay, first let me begin by saying, I am neither for or against homosexual partnerships, I don't care what consenting adults do or don't do. I am very much a 'small government' kind of guy, and a federalist who thinks the states should be allowed to establish their own laws, on any matter of social issue, within the Constitution. I have always supported the idea of generic civil unions to replace 'marriage' in government lexicon. The government doesn't have ANY business ordaining marriages, that should be left to churches. But since the government at some point, decided they needed to meddle in our affairs, for taxation purposes, revenues, or whatever... they became involved in the marriage sanctioning business.

To add to this travesty, comes the gay marriage lobby. Now the government is also in the business of ordaining sexual lifestyles, under the auspices of 'marriage'. I have always been opposed to gay marriage, I think the term is an oxymoron. I don't think anyone is "being denied their right" here, marriage is clearly a relationship between a male and female, for the purposes of procreation and family. It's simply NOT what two gay people do. That said, the judges and powers that be, seem to want to disagree with me and find in favor of this idea, which essentially creates marriage based on sexual proclivity.

That probably wouldn't be a problem if all we had were "gays" and "straights" and nothing else. When we start getting into sexual proclivities, we find there are many, not just a few. Some people have sexual attraction to animals, that's what cranks their tractor. So now, I get why we can't currently allow people to marry animals, but couldn't a case be made for it now? If government intervenes to "right the injustice" of so many, who merely want to live their lifestyles... why not? People will say, "well, animals can't consent!" but isn't "consent" a word like "marriage" which can be modified because of ambiguity? A female may argue that her Doberman is certainly fulfilling her needs, thus "consenting" to their arrangement. Why would this be a problem that couldn't be overcome? I mean, if we're going to allow the government to ordain sexual lifestyles, we have to abide by the Constitution... equal protection and all.

Some creepy old men like to mess with little girls. Now we currently have this thing about "age of accountability" in this country, but this varies from state to state. And certainly, "age of accountability" is considerably more ambiguous than "marriage" so we can simply redefine what the term means, to accommodate the sexual proclivities of others. After all, it wasn't that long ago that 12 year old girls could marry, in THIS country!

Now some people.... they simply can't achieve sexual gratification through just one partner. For them, the only way to be truly content, is with several sexual partners. However, America's 'archaic' laws prevent them from marrying multiple partners, denying their rights to true happiness and love. Surely this new ruling by SCOTUS has considered their suffering as well. Right?

Then there are the individual pleas, maybe it's a mourning high school sweetheart who's loved one was killed in a freak car wreck the night before their wedding? Shouldn't she be allowed to still marry her deceased husband, so as to obtain his worldly possessions and stuff, because that is what he would have wanted... and another day, it would have happened legitimately, and if we're changing what 'marriage' means to accommodate all these other lifestyles and whatnot, couldn't the exception be made here?

The US Constitution makes it clear, if we establish a law or "right" to one group, we must allow it for ALL groups. As marriage has traditionally been understood, this has only been a problem with regard to race and allowing interracial marriage. But case in point, the Constitution didn't allow discrimination based on race, so a right was being violated. The Constitution does allow discrimination based on sexual proclivities, we generally think of those people as 'perverts' and society in general discriminates against them. That's why perverts remain "in the closet" mostly... but hey, now that SCOTUS has cleared all this up, they can come on out and gain legitimacy through marriage!

 

[editec]

One of the reasons that gay marriage can be considered a a problem is because in many cases it will cost tour GOVERNMENTS OR INSURANCE COMPANIES or PENSION FUNDS more money

The gay unmarried partners of workers with pension plans right now do not have access to the benefits married partners get.

We're talking BILLION$ here folks...many many billions of dollar annually.

Where did I get that number?

I SWAGed it.

 

[rdean]

Okay, first let me begin by saying, I am neither for or against homosexual partnerships, I don't care what consenting adults do or don't do. I am very much a 'small government' kind of guy, and a federalist who thinks the states should be allowed to establish their own laws, on any matter of social issue, within the Constitution. I have always supported the idea of generic civil unions to replace 'marriage' in government lexicon. The government doesn't have ANY business ordaining marriages, that should be left to churches. But since the government at some point, decided they needed to meddle in our affairs, for taxation purposes, revenues, or whatever... they became involved in the marriage sanctioning business.

To add to this travesty, comes the gay marriage lobby. Now the government is also in the business of ordaining sexual lifestyles, under the auspices of 'marriage'. I have always been opposed to gay marriage, I think the term is an oxymoron. I don't think anyone is "being denied their right" here, marriage is clearly a relationship between a male and female, for the purposes of procreation and family. It's simply NOT what two gay people do. That said, the judges and powers that be, seem to want to disagree with me and find in favor of this idea, which essentially creates marriage based on sexual proclivity.

That probably wouldn't be a problem if all we had were "gays" and "straights" and nothing else. When we start getting into sexual proclivities, we find there are many, not just a few. Some people have sexual attraction to animals, that's what cranks their tractor. So now, I get why we can't currently allow people to marry animals, but couldn't a case be made for it now? If government intervenes to "right the injustice" of so many, who merely want to live their lifestyles... why not? People will say, "well, animals can't consent!" but isn't "consent" a word like "marriage" which can be modified because of ambiguity? A female may argue that her Doberman is certainly fulfilling her needs, thus "consenting" to their arrangement. Why would this be a problem that couldn't be overcome? I mean, if we're going to allow the government to ordain sexual lifestyles, we have to abide by the Constitution... equal protection and all.

Some creepy old men like to mess with little girls. Now we currently have this thing about "age of accountability" in this country, but this varies from state to state. And certainly, "age of accountability" is considerably more ambiguous than "marriage" so we can simply redefine what the term means, to accommodate the sexual proclivities of others. After all, it wasn't that long ago that 12 year old girls could marry, in THIS country!

Now some people.... they simply can't achieve sexual gratification through just one partner. For them, the only way to be truly content, is with several sexual partners. However, America's 'archaic' laws prevent them from marrying multiple partners, denying their rights to true happiness and love. Surely this new ruling by SCOTUS has considered their suffering as well. Right?

Then there are the individual pleas, maybe it's a mourning high school sweetheart who's loved one was killed in a freak car wreck the night before their wedding? Shouldn't she be allowed to still marry her deceased husband, so as to obtain his worldly possessions and stuff, because that is what he would have wanted... and another day, it would have happened legitimately, and if we're changing what 'marriage' means to accommodate all these other lifestyles and whatnot, couldn't the exception be made here?

The US Constitution makes it clear, if we establish a law or "right" to one group, we must allow it for ALL groups. As marriage has traditionally been understood, this has only been a problem with regard to race and allowing interracial marriage. But case in point, the Constitution didn't allow discrimination based on race, so a right was being violated. The Constitution does allow discrimination based on sexual proclivities, we generally think of those people as 'perverts' and society in general discriminates against them. That's why perverts remain "in the closet" mostly... but hey, now that SCOTUS has cleared all this up, they can come on out and gain legitimacy through marriage!

You can't say you are for or against something and then write a mile of bullshit.

 

[Boss]

You can't say you are for or against something and then write a mile of bullshit.

And you apparently can't read very well, or you believe that not being for or against gay relationships means you are also indifferent on gay marriages. To clarify, I have no problem with gay relationships, I am neither for or against... I do have a problem with gay marriages, I don't think gay relationships constitute marriage. Not questioning the amount of "love" there, it may be more, but the act of marriage is specifically a male/female thing. It's like "procreation" can only mean one thing, if you adopt children, that's fine, but it's not procreation. If I don't believe we should call adoption, procreation, it doesn't mean I am opposed to people adopting.

 

[Montrovant]

Ah, the same tired arguments. Gay marriage means that marriage with animals, or inanimate objects, is next!

Gay marriage means pedophilia will be accepted next!

I admit, you add an unusual twist in thinking that somehow animals will be considered able to consent. It's completely nonsensical, and actually has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage, but it isn't something you hear very often.

Ditto age of consent. Gay marriage has no effect on age of consent. Those numbers are, in many ways, arbitrary. They could, conceivably, be raised or lowered at any time if enough voters were convinced it was a good idea. However, that is true regardless of whether marriage is allowed for gay couples as well as straights. Again, there is no real connection.

Multiple partners is a potential issue. I'm not sure how polygamy will be addressed in the future. The big issue I see with it is how individualized it needs to be; who gets what powers or privileges in such an arrangement. I would note, however, that your insistence on making this about sex is misleading. Marriage is not about sex. One need never have sex to be married.

I can agree that it would be better for government to use a different term than marriage for all unions. Let people have marriage however they want as individuals and government can grant status based on civil unions or whatever term is adopted. That's just not a realistic concept at the moment, however. People are far too wedded (pun intended) to the word marriage. It's annoying, perhaps, but a matter of semantics rather than a deep moral or principled stance, IMO.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay, first let me begin by saying, I am neither for or against homosexual partnerships, I don't care what consenting adults do or don't do. I am very much a 'small government' kind of guy, and a federalist who thinks the states should be allowed to establish their own laws, on any matter of social issue, within the Constitution. I have always supported the idea of generic civil unions to replace 'marriage' in government lexicon. The government doesn't have ANY business ordaining marriages, that should be left to churches. But since the government at some point, decided they needed to meddle in our affairs, for taxation purposes, revenues, or whatever... they became involved in the marriage sanctioning business.

To add to this travesty, comes the gay marriage lobby. Now the government is also in the business of ordaining sexual lifestyles, under the auspices of 'marriage'. I have always been opposed to gay marriage, I think the term is an oxymoron. I don't think anyone is "being denied their right" here, marriage is clearly a relationship between a male and female, for the purposes of procreation and family. It's simply NOT what two gay people do. That said, the judges and powers that be, seem to want to disagree with me and find in favor of this idea, which essentially creates marriage based on sexual proclivity.

That probably wouldn't be a problem if all we had were "gays" and "straights" and nothing else. When we start getting into sexual proclivities, we find there are many, not just a few. Some people have sexual attraction to animals, that's what cranks their tractor. So now, I get why we can't currently allow people to marry animals, but couldn't a case be made for it now? If government intervenes to "right the injustice" of so many, who merely want to live their lifestyles... why not? People will say, "well, animals can't consent!" but isn't "consent" a word like "marriage" which can be modified because of ambiguity? A female may argue that her Doberman is certainly fulfilling her needs, thus "consenting" to their arrangement. Why would this be a problem that couldn't be overcome? I mean, if we're going to allow the government to ordain sexual lifestyles, we have to abide by the Constitution... equal protection and all.

Some creepy old men like to mess with little girls. Now we currently have this thing about "age of accountability" in this country, but this varies from state to state. And certainly, "age of accountability" is considerably more ambiguous than "marriage" so we can simply redefine what the term means, to accommodate the sexual proclivities of others. After all, it wasn't that long ago that 12 year old girls could marry, in THIS country!

Now some people.... they simply can't achieve sexual gratification through just one partner. For them, the only way to be truly content, is with several sexual partners. However, America's 'archaic' laws prevent them from marrying multiple partners, denying their rights to true happiness and love. Surely this new ruling by SCOTUS has considered their suffering as well. Right?

Then there are the individual pleas, maybe it's a mourning high school sweetheart who's loved one was killed in a freak car wreck the night before their wedding? Shouldn't she be allowed to still marry her deceased husband, so as to obtain his worldly possessions and stuff, because that is what he would have wanted... and another day, it would have happened legitimately, and if we're changing what 'marriage' means to accommodate all these other lifestyles and whatnot, couldn't the exception be made here?

The US Constitution makes it clear, if we establish a law or "right" to one group, we must allow it for ALL groups. As marriage has traditionally been understood, this has only been a problem with regard to race and allowing interracial marriage. But case in point, the Constitution didn't allow discrimination based on race, so a right was being violated. The Constitution does allow discrimination based on sexual proclivities, we generally think of those people as 'perverts' and society in general discriminates against them. That's why perverts remain "in the closet" mostly... but hey, now that SCOTUS has cleared all this up, they can come on out and gain legitimacy through marriage!

That’s quite a cacophony of fear, ignorance, distortions, hyperbole, hysteria, and lies.

There’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

There is only marriage, the law written by each state and administered in state courts. The notion of taking marriage from the states is consequently ridiculous. Marriage is contact law, a binding agreement between and among two equal partners and the state.

Since there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ the issue only concerns same-sex couples’ equal protection right to access marriage law, as required by the 14th Amendment. Now that the courts have ruled the states may not deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, the issue becomes one of challenging state laws hostile to same-sex couples.

Your reference to people ‘marrying’ animals and the ‘ambiguity of marriage’ clearly indicates you have little understanding of the issue, if any. When same-sex couples marry nothing ‘changes’ with regard to marriage, it is in no way ‘redefined’; indeed, marriage remains identical for both opposite- and same-sex couples: two equal parties making a commitment acknowledged by the state, it’s really not difficult to comprehend.

Otherwise laws prohibiting persons from marrying animals, or plural marriage, or siblings marrying, or laws prohibiting fathers and daughters marrying are perfectly Constitutional because they are rationally based, are applied to everyone equally, do not single out a particular class of persons for disadvantage, and seek a legitimate legislative end – none of which is the case with regard to measures prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

The US Constitution makes it clear that there is a right to individual liberty, to be free to define oneself absent interference by the state. Homosexuality is not a ‘perversion,’ the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees the right to self-determination, regardless how homosexuality manifest, and the right of same-sex couples to access their state’s marriage law along with opposite-sex couples.

 

[Moonglow]

Now that gay marriage is legal, I still have an urge to sex with women.

 

[deltex1]

If we left marriage to the church/religious communities and allowed the government to sanction civil unions...with both activities eligible for the same federal benefits, we would not have all the pissing and moaning.

 

[Boss]

That’s quite a cacophony of fear, ignorance, distortions, hyperbole, hysteria, and lies.

There’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

There is only marriage, the law written by each state and administered in state courts. The notion of taking marriage from the states is consequently ridiculous. Marriage is contact law, a binding agreement between and among two equal partners and the state.

Two partners who are male and female, because THAT is what gets "married." Homosexual relationships are not marriage and can't be marriage, unless they are between a homosexual male and female. The State also issues "building permits" but you can't get a building permit to sell alcoholic beverages, because that isn't building. They license plumbers, but you can't get a plumber's license to do electrical contracting.

Since there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ the issue only concerns same-sex couples’ equal protection right to access marriage law, as required by the 14th Amendment. Now that the courts have ruled the states may not deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, the issue becomes one of challenging state laws hostile to same-sex couples.

They are not being denied equal protection, homosexuals can and do marry partners of the opposite sex, there is no prohibition on marriage for homosexual people. But marriage is the union of a male and female partner, so most gay couples simply don't meet the criteria.

Your reference to people ‘marrying’ animals and the ‘ambiguity of marriage’ clearly indicates you have little understanding of the issue, if any. When same-sex couples marry nothing ‘changes’ with regard to marriage, it is in no way ‘redefined’; indeed, marriage remains identical for both opposite- and same-sex couples: two equal parties making a commitment acknowledged by the state, it’s really not difficult to comprehend.

Yes, it is being redefined, whether you like to admit that or not. It currently means the union of a man and woman, and it is being redefined to accommodate homosexual same-sex partnerships. It's not difficult to comprehend, we are changing marriage from being the union of a man and woman, to marriage being the societal legitimization of sexual behavior.

Otherwise laws prohibiting persons from marrying animals, or plural marriage, or siblings marrying, or laws prohibiting fathers and daughters marrying are perfectly Constitutional because they are rationally based, are applied to everyone equally, do not single out a particular class of persons for disadvantage, and seek a legitimate legislative end – none of which is the case with regard to measures prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Hold on a minute... rationally-based by what definition? Who decided what was "rational" for all of us? Applied equally? How the hell do you figure, denying this same "right" to other sexual proclivities, in any way, makes it applied equally? What makes you think they aren't being "singled out" and prohibited? They can't do it, so it's obvious they are being prohibited. But you claim this is okay because it is "rational" ...it wasn't long ago, it was "rational" to assume marriage was between a man and woman.

The US Constitution makes it clear that there is a right to individual liberty, to be free to define oneself absent interference by the state. Homosexuality is not a ‘perversion,’ the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees the right to self-determination, regardless how homosexuality manifest, and the right of same-sex couples to access their state’s marriage law along with opposite-sex couples.

Again, I have no problem with homosexuality, or people practicing their homosexual behavior. I've supported no law banning homosexuals, or keeping homosexuals from marrying opposite sex partners like everyone else, this is not a bigotry thing, as much as you want to turn it into that. I am even supportive of Civil Unions, getting government out of the "marriage" business altogether, and defining domestic partnership in a generic way, without an official government sanctioning either way. In fact, CUs could even be used by relatives or platonic partners who simply wanted to enter into the arrangement. So I am more than accommodating with regard to the 'perks' gay couples would like to have. I just see a really huge problem in redefining marriage under the law, to legitimize sexual behaviors, I think it sets a dangerous precedent we'll wish we never set.

If "marriage" can be redefined, so can "consent" or "adult" ...they are just arbitrary words, and can mean whatever the law deems them to mean. Under the Constitution, if you have established that marriage can be ordained in order to accommodate homosexual behavior, then it has to also accommodate other sexual behaviors as well, that's what equal protection is all about. Some say, where are all these cases at, why isn't anyone challenging for this? Well, it's just now becoming the law and precedent, once it is established, look for these folks to come out of the closet, just like homosexuals did.

 

[Montrovant]

That’s quite a cacophony of fear, ignorance, distortions, hyperbole, hysteria, and lies.

There’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

There is only marriage, the law written by each state and administered in state courts. The notion of taking marriage from the states is consequently ridiculous. Marriage is contact law, a binding agreement between and among two equal partners and the state.

Two partners who are male and female, because THAT is what gets "married." Homosexual relationships are not marriage and can't be marriage, unless they are between a homosexual male and female. The State also issues "building permits" but you can't get a building permit to sell alcoholic beverages, because that isn't building. They license plumbers, but you can't get a plumber's license to do electrical contracting.

Since there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ the issue only concerns same-sex couples’ equal protection right to access marriage law, as required by the 14th Amendment. Now that the courts have ruled the states may not deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, the issue becomes one of challenging state laws hostile to same-sex couples.

They are not being denied equal protection, homosexuals can and do marry partners of the opposite sex, there is no prohibition on marriage for homosexual people. But marriage is the union of a male and female partner, so most gay couples simply don't meet the criteria.



Yes, it is being redefined, whether you like to admit that or not. It currently means the union of a man and woman, and it is being redefined to accommodate homosexual same-sex partnerships. It's not difficult to comprehend, we are changing marriage from being the union of a man and woman, to marriage being the societal legitimization of sexual behavior.

Otherwise laws prohibiting persons from marrying animals, or plural marriage, or siblings marrying, or laws prohibiting fathers and daughters marrying are perfectly Constitutional because they are rationally based, are applied to everyone equally, do not single out a particular class of persons for disadvantage, and seek a legitimate legislative end – none of which is the case with regard to measures prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Hold on a minute... rationally-based by what definition? Who decided what was "rational" for all of us? Applied equally? How the hell do you figure, denying this same "right" to other sexual proclivities, in any way, makes it applied equally? What makes you think they aren't being "singled out" and prohibited? They can't do it, so it's obvious they are being prohibited. But you claim this is okay because it is "rational" ...it wasn't long ago, it was "rational" to assume marriage was between a man and woman.

The US Constitution makes it clear that there is a right to individual liberty, to be free to define oneself absent interference by the state. Homosexuality is not a ‘perversion,’ the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees the right to self-determination, regardless how homosexuality manifest, and the right of same-sex couples to access their state’s marriage law along with opposite-sex couples.

Again, I have no problem with homosexuality, or people practicing their homosexual behavior. I've supported no law banning homosexuals, or keeping homosexuals from marrying opposite sex partners like everyone else, this is not a bigotry thing, as much as you want to turn it into that. I am even supportive of Civil Unions, getting government out of the "marriage" business altogether, and defining domestic partnership in a generic way, without an official government sanctioning either way. In fact, CUs could even be used by relatives or platonic partners who simply wanted to enter into the arrangement. So I am more than accommodating with regard to the 'perks' gay couples would like to have. I just see a really huge problem in redefining marriage under the law, to legitimize sexual behaviors, I think it sets a dangerous precedent we'll wish we never set.

If "marriage" can be redefined, so can "consent" or "adult" ...they are just arbitrary words, and can mean whatever the law deems them to mean. Under the Constitution, if you have established that marriage can be ordained in order to accommodate homosexual behavior, then it has to also accommodate other sexual behaviors as well, that's what equal protection is all about. Some say, where are all these cases at, why isn't anyone challenging for this? Well, it's just now becoming the law and precedent, once it is established, look for these folks to come out of the closet, just like homosexuals did.

And again, what does this actually have to do with homosexuals getting married?

How does it set a precedent for changing age of consent, or allowing non-humans to consent?

It might lead to some sort of accommodation for polygamous marriage, that I can accept.

As I said, I agree with the idea that the government would be better off using another term than marriage. Do you agree that such a change is unlikely to happen any time soon? Too many people want to use marriage legally, people are too accustomed to it, for it to easily be changed. That being the case, isn't allowing same sex marriage the best alternative available?

 

[Boss]

And again, what does this actually have to do with homosexuals getting married?

None of this has ever had anything to do with homosexuals getting married, they've been doing it for years. No state prohibits people from obtaining a marriage license because they are homosexual. I had a teacher in high school who was a flaming homosexual, he was married and had two children. BUT... "Marriage" is the union of a man and woman, not same-sex homosexual partnership. That's something people want to INCLUDE in marriage, and others are opposed to.

How does it set a precedent for changing age of consent, or allowing non-humans to consent?

There is already precedent for age of consent, as I pointed out, not too long ago, girls as young as 12 and 14 could marry legally in this country. The 'precedent' is establishing that marriage is there to accommodate your sexual lifestyle. Once that has been done, it has to be done for all sexual lifestyles to be "equal under the law" according to the Constitution. You can't pick and choose which sexual lifestyles (or groups) are appropriate and which are not. As it stood, there was no requirement regarding sexuality, marriage was simply between a man and woman, it didn't matter what their sexual proclivities were.

It might lead to some sort of accommodation for polygamous marriage, that I can accept.

So what's the limit? 15...20? What if I want to be Mac Daddy and find me a harem of bitches to draw welfare checks for us to live and love on? You down with that too?

As I said, I agree with the idea that the government would be better off using another term than marriage. Do you agree that such a change is unlikely to happen any time soon? Too many people want to use marriage legally, people are too accustomed to it, for it to easily be changed. That being the case, isn't allowing same sex marriage the best alternative available?

I think too many Liberal Democrats see this as a trophy issue they can't abandon no matter what. I also think too many Christian Republicans are dead set to fight it to the bitter end. So both political 'sides' are too politically invested to let it go at this point. This has not a damn thing to do with "what is easy to do" and everything to do with politics.

No, allowing "same sec marriage" is redefining marriage under the parameters of legitimizing sexual behavior, and I am not okay with that. I don't think it's the government's place to legitimize (or condemn) sexual lifestyles, and that is simply what we are allowing now. The same government with the power to tell us it's legal for same sex partners to marry, can tell us it's NOT legal. Does that fact escape some of you, or what?

What I think would be the BEST alternative, is to write legislation which completely removes the federal government from any recognition of "marital status" and replace this with CU. Urge states to adopt models based on the Federal example, and remove 'marriage' from the lexicon of all government. It's none of their damn business! This takes the issue off the table forever, it's DONE! SETTLED! Every side gets what they claim to want.... gays get to enjoy benefits, church ladies get to keep sanctity of religious ceremony... the state isn't endorsing sexual behavior or denying/allowing any rights because of sexual proclivity. It's a win/win/win/win solution. But it's not going to happen because Liberals smell blood in the water. This has to be turned into Civil Rights all over again, and they have to use it to denigrate and bash Christians. While Christians are always looking for a good 'crusade' ...so the cake is already in the oven.

I predict it will end up being a fucked up mess we wish had never been started.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If people would stop trying to control and meddle, there would be no problem at all. What consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is nobody's business.

It really is just that simple.

 

[Boss]

If people would stop trying to control and meddle, there would be no problem at all. What consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is nobody's business.

It really is just that simple.

You're right about that, but allowing the government to endorse is no different than allowing government to condemn, you have admitted they should have this power. The people opposed to "gay marriage" are not concerned with what goes on in your bedroom, they are concerned with what goes on at the courthouse, and they have that right as Americans. Take it out of the courthouse, take it out of government's hands, and let people be free to have whatever arrangement of domestic partnership they please, under generic civil union contracts. All the government needs to be aware of is "party A" and "party B" who signed a contract. They are not endorsing who has sex with whom, or who is getting 'married' to whom. They should have never been involved with marriage anyway, and we're certainly not "fixing" that problem by adding sexual behavior to the mix.

 

[bodecea]

You can't say you are for or against something and then write a mile of bullshit.

And you apparently can't read very well, or you believe that not being for or against gay relationships means you are also indifferent on gay marriages. To clarify, I have no problem with gay relationships, I am neither for or against... I do have a problem with gay marriages, I don't think gay relationships constitute marriage. Not questioning the amount of "love" there, it may be more, but the act of marriage is specifically a male/female thing. It's like "procreation" can only mean one thing, if you adopt children, that's fine, but it's not procreation. If I don't believe we should call adoption, procreation, it doesn't mean I am opposed to people adopting.

What have you actively done to eliminate civil marriage? and for how long?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"They should have never been involved with marriage anyway, and we're certainly not "fixing" that problem by adding sexual behavior to the mix. " (Boss)

Boss, since when is the government in the sex business, regarding marraige? Why in the hell do you claim to not care about what people do in their bedrooms, and then go on to claim that the government has now , "getting involved in sexual behavior"? Did I miss something in the law stating that people who marry may have sex with other people and are now "ordained" (in your words) and can have sex with each other, or with animals, or children, etc.?

Your 'libertainian" position is nothing but your own rationalization of your own homophobia. I live in a retirment community, and I am sure that fully half of the heterosexual couples over 75 here no longer have sex, if not more. That is alright with you. But if a homosexual (defined as being sexualy attracted to the same sex) gets married, and they do not engage in sex, you still feel that they should not be allowed to married, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE SEXUALLY ACTIVE OR NOT! In short, a sexless marraige of a heterosexual couple is ok, but a sexless marraige of a homosexual couple is not. I don't even bring up the issue of either marraige which includes a sex life, BECAUSE YOU, YOURSELF HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT YOU DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR BEDROOMS!

What you have demostrated is that you deem that the marraige of a celibate couple who are, by nature, attracted to the opposite sex, to be worthy of the legal status of marraige, while another celebate couple who, by nature, are sexually attractive to the same sex, are NOT worthy of the legal status of marraige.

Look closely in a mirror, boss, and reflect upon yourself, for what you are looking at is a homophobic bigot, and one who is a hippocrite as well, because if neither of these couples engage in sexual activity, you are saying both, that gays do not have the right to get married, and at the same time, that you don't care one way or the other about their sexual activity.

I usually do not make statements on here that are this strong, but your logic and self delusional hippocracy is disgusting to me.

 

[Boss]

"They should have never been involved with marriage anyway, and we're certainly not "fixing" that problem by adding sexual behavior to the mix. " (Boss)

Boss, since when is the government in the sex business, regarding marraige?

Since homosexual rights activists pushed them to redefine marriage in way that includes homosexual people.

Why in the hell do you claim to not care about what people do in their bedrooms, and then go on to claim that the government has now , "getting involved in sexual behavior"?

Because that is what has happened. You've given your blessing for the government to tell you what sexuality is acceptable, and subsequently, which ones aren't. You think this is a "victory" because they are telling you homosexuality is acceptable, but you will one day regret you gave them this authority. The same authority that can grant you legitimacy, can also take it away.

Did I miss something in the law stating that people who marry may have sex with other people and are now "ordained" (in your words) and can have sex with each other, or with animals, or children, etc.?

Apparently you missed the part where homosexuals demanded "equal rights" and courts are siding with them to support gay marriage by redefining marriage.

Your 'libertainian" position is nothing but your own rationalization of your own homophobia.

Ha, so I guess it doesn't matter how many times I say that I have nothing against homosexuals? You've labeled me, and by fuck, you are the KING! Whatever you proclaim is golden, and we shouldn't even question it. I do have a question for you though, since you are so brilliant and all-knowing... The dozens and dozens of lifelong gay friends and family I have... should I inform them that I am an intolerant bigot homophobe, or let sleeping dogs lie? ...I'm betting you favor the lying... just a feeling.

I live in a retirment community, and I am sure that fully half of the heterosexual couples over 75 here no longer have sex, if not more. That is alright with you. But if a homosexual (defined as being sexualy attracted to the same sex) gets married, and they do not engage in sex, you still feel that they should not be allowed to married, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE SEXUALLY ACTIVE OR NOT!

Hold on... WHEN AND WHERE did I ever say I didn't think someone should be allowed to marry? Let's be clear, I don't think we should allow government to redefine what marriage is. I think everybody should be able to have whatever definition of marriage they please, and the government ought to stay out of that. It's not their business whether I think same sex unions constitute marriage, or if I think marriage is a sacred religious tenet. I should be able to define it any way I please, as long as I'm not violating anyone's rights. This is why I favor CUs instead of "gay marriage." Although, with the newly discovered revelation that I am a homophobe, I'll probably have to reconsider my position.

In short, a sexless marraige of a heterosexual couple is ok, but a sexless marraige of a homosexual couple is not. I don't even bring up the issue of either marraige which includes a sex life, BECAUSE YOU, YOURSELF HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT YOU DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR BEDROOMS!

And here you've created a fake scenario in your head, assigned me a position in the fake scenario, and condemned me as a homophobe for my fake position in your fake scenario... THEN, you have the mentally disturbed nerve to complain that my fake self has contradicted my real self! ....You are some more piece of work!

What you have demostrated is that you deem that the marraige of a celibate couple who are, by nature, attracted to the opposite sex, to be worthy of the legal status of marraige, while another celebate couple who, by nature, are sexually attractive to the same sex, are NOT worthy of the legal status of marraige.

No, that was your made up fake scenario where the homophobic fake me demonstrated that. The real me thinks government ought to not be involved in what we define as marriage... either for or against same sex or traditional marriage...or even no=sex marriage. It's not the government's business either way.

Look closely in a mirror, boss, and reflect upon yourself, for what you are looking at is a homophobic bigot, and one who is a hippocrite as well, because if neither of these couples engage in sexual activity, you are saying both, that gays do not have the right to get married, and at the same time, that you don't care one way or the other about their sexual activity.

Again, this is what the fake me that you made up, is saying. The fake me is definitely a hypocrite to the real me. I've never said that gays shouldn't have the right to get married. I know of no state that discriminates against homosexuals when issuing licenses.

I usually do not make statements on here that are this strong, but your logic and self delusional hippocracy is disgusting to me.

Again, I think the problem is this fake version of me, which you created in your head, is saying. Now, as much as I wish I could punch the fake me in the face, he only exists inside your head, so the best I can offer is to punch you in the face... I'm betting you'd interpret that incorrectly as well.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I repeat, Boss. You deny it, but you care very much what goes on in other people's bedrooms. There is, in fact, no other way that you can even identify and define who a homosexual is. Therefore, even an inactive homesexual is condemned in your world to a second class status, simply because of what he is thinking, which you can not even define or identify. How about thought police? I know a guy who is a homesexual who has never once acted on it. You would never know that he was, unless he had opened up about it to you, like he did to me. The mere fact that he thinks that way makes him ineligible, in your world, to love and be loved in a legally protected environment, as you love and are loved in YOUR protected environment. His thoughts have condemned him. Not, his actions.

i would expect no less that a religious fanatic, and you have not disappointed me. (Oh, excuse me...not, "religious". That would be "spiritual", in your world of euphanisms).

You can validate your own bigotry to your heart's content, but you will have to find someone else to respond to your circular logic, because it is simply too frustrating for me to endure further. It is like arguing with a George Wallace supporter, back in 1968, who kept insisting that he wasn't a bigot. He was just in favor of "seperate but equal". Been there. Done that. Over and out.

 

[Boss]

I repeat, Boss. You deny it, but you care very much what goes on in other people's bedrooms. (I don't) There is, in fact, no other way that you can even identify and define who a homosexual is. (didn't say I could) Therefore, even an inactive homesexual is condemned in your (fake me) world to a second class status, simply because of what he is thinking, which you can not even define or identify. How about thought police? I know a guy who is a homesexual who has never once acted on it. You would never know that he was, unless he had opened up about it to you, like he did to me. The mere fact that he thinks that way makes him ineligible, in your (fake me) world, to love and be loved in a legally protected environment, as you love and are loved in YOUR protected environment. His thoughts have condemned him. Not, his actions.

i would expect no less that a religious fanatic, and you have not disappointed me. (Oh, excuse me...not, "religious". That would be "spiritual", in your world of euphanisms).

You can validate your own bigotry to your heart's content, but you will have to find someone else to respond to your circular logic, because it is simply too frustrating for me to endure further. It is like arguing with a George Wallace supporter, back in 1968, who kept insisting that he wasn't a bigot. He was just in favor of "seperate but equal". Been there. Done that. Over and out.

Again, your problem is this incarnation of me that you've created in your mind, who sounds like a solid gold twat. Let's be clear, you've never met me before, you don't know anything about me. You have drawn outrageous assumptions about what I think and feel, and portrayed those onto me as if they are factual and real. I call you out on this, and you accuse me of being in denial. And the more I make you look like a total fool for this, the more you will drag up other thread topics, call me names, compare me to a Wallace supporter in 1968...who incidentally, was a Democrat until the day he died.

This is what kind of a dishonest turkey fucker you are.

 

[bodecea]

You can't say you are for or against something and then write a mile of bullshit.

And you apparently can't read very well, or you believe that not being for or against gay relationships means you are also indifferent on gay marriages. To clarify, I have no problem with gay relationships, I am neither for or against... I do have a problem with gay marriages, I don't think gay relationships constitute marriage. Not questioning the amount of "love" there, it may be more, but the act of marriage is specifically a male/female thing. It's like "procreation" can only mean one thing, if you adopt children, that's fine, but it's not procreation. If I don't believe we should call adoption, procreation, it doesn't mean I am opposed to people adopting.

What have you actively done to eliminate civil marriage? and for how long?

Again, I ask Boss. What have you actively done to eliminate civil marriage? And for how long?

 

[Boss]

And you apparently can't read very well, or you believe that not being for or against gay relationships means you are also indifferent on gay marriages. To clarify, I have no problem with gay relationships, I am neither for or against... I do have a problem with gay marriages, I don't think gay relationships constitute marriage. Not questioning the amount of "love" there, it may be more, but the act of marriage is specifically a male/female thing. It's like "procreation" can only mean one thing, if you adopt children, that's fine, but it's not procreation. If I don't believe we should call adoption, procreation, it doesn't mean I am opposed to people adopting.

What have you actively done to eliminate civil marriage? and for how long?

Again, I ask Boss. What have you actively done to eliminate civil marriage? And for how long?

I fail to see what this has to do with anything being discussed. I'm not actively trying to eliminate civil marriage now, I don't think government should be involved in marriage. When did I become "small government?" Probably around 1980 or so, when I became aware enough about politics to form an adult opinion.

Now let me ask you, why do you assume that I want to eliminate or prohibit things? Is it more because that is the way your bigoted mind imagines me to be, or is it because that's how you are about things, and you assume I am the same as you?