To Hell with "Gay Marriage"!

[Valerie]

What they want is extra rights.
No one is preventing them from marrying.

What extra rights??? The right to love someone?

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is absolutely no reason same sex couples should be prohibited from marrying.

Is there ever a valid reason for denying law abiding, productive, contributing members of society participation in all rights, benefits and privileges of said society?

As an aside it is my opinion that the state should never recognize as legal marriage performed by a religious institution.

Fags already have all rights, benefits and privileges that everyne else does. What they want is extra rights.
No one is preventing them from marrying. They can go to any religious authority, or secular authority they want and get married. But they state won't recognize that. WHy should they?
How about if Dude and I are old friends. I get laid off and my COBRA ceases. Dude has great medical benefits at work. He and I get "married" so I can sponge off his benefits. It makes a farce out of marriage. This is probably why every state that has had it on the ballot has rejected it.

Because we all know that men and women never ever enter into marriages of convenience right?

 

[The Rabbi]

What they want is extra rights.
No one is preventing them from marrying.

What extra rights??? The right to love someone?

Is anyone telling them they can't love someone? Not me. Not anyone I know.
Is anyone telling them they can't get married? Not me. Not anyone Iknow.
Is anyone telling them they can't marry a single adult person of the opposite sex not related to them? Not me, not anyone I know.
They have exactly the same rights as you and me. Now they want extra.
I'll give them rights: Vaseline at 40% off.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is absolutely no reason same sex couples should be prohibited from marrying.

Is there ever a valid reason for denying law abiding, productive, contributing members of society participation in all rights, benefits and privileges of said society?

As an aside it is my opinion that the state should never recognize as legal marriage performed by a religious institution.

Fags already have all rights, benefits and privileges that everyne else does. What they want is extra rights.
No one is preventing them from marrying. They can go to any religious authority, or secular authority they want and get married. But they state won't recognize that. WHy should they?
How about if Dude and I are old friends. I get laid off and my COBRA ceases. Dude has great medical benefits at work. He and I get "married" so I can sponge off his benefits. It makes a farce out of marriage. This is probably why every state that has had it on the ballot has rejected it.

Because we all know that men and women never ever enter into marriages of convenience right?

That's relevant here, how exactly?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fags already have all rights, benefits and privileges that everyne else does. What they want is extra rights.
No one is preventing them from marrying. They can go to any religious authority, or secular authority they want and get married. But they state won't recognize that. WHy should they?
How about if Dude and I are old friends. I get laid off and my COBRA ceases. Dude has great medical benefits at work. He and I get "married" so I can sponge off his benefits. It makes a farce out of marriage. This is probably why every state that has had it on the ballot has rejected it.

Because we all know that men and women never ever enter into marriages of convenience right?

That's relevant here, how exactly?

Wow you don't even read what you write do you.

I get laid off and my COBRA ceases. Dude has great medical benefits at work. He and I get "married" so I can sponge off his benefits. It makes a farce out of marriage.

You just defined a marriage of convenience here.

duh.

 

[rightwinger]

Fags already have all rights, benefits and privileges that everyne else does. What they want is extra rights.
No one is preventing them from marrying. They can go to any religious authority, or secular authority they want and get married. But they state won't recognize that. WHy should they?
How about if Dude and I are old friends. I get laid off and my COBRA ceases. Dude has great medical benefits at work. He and I get "married" so I can sponge off his benefits. It makes a farce out of marriage. This is probably why every state that has had it on the ballot has rejected it.

Because we all know that men and women never ever enter into marriages of convenience right?

That's relevant here, how exactly?

It is relevant because it shows that your argument is not logical.
Straight couples are allowed to marry for reasons other than love......so why hold same sex marriages to a different standard?
I personally have no objections if you and Dude want to get married for whatever reason

 

[Valerie]

What they want is extra rights.
No one is preventing them from marrying.

What extra rights??? The right to love someone?

Is anyone telling them they can't love someone? Not me. Not anyone I know.
Is anyone telling them they can't get married? Not me. Not anyone Iknow.
Is anyone telling them they can't marry a single adult person of the opposite sex not related to them? Not me, not anyone I know.
They have exactly the same rights as you and me. Now they want extra.
I'll give them rights: Vaseline at 40% off.

But SOME people...your fellow citizens...good people...law abiding people...do not actually love anyone of the opposite sex, in fact they love someone of the same sex.


When ANY loving couple wants to enter into committed partnership they have every right and freedom to do so, despite your personal opinion of them.

So, the question is...Why do you think YOU have a right to deny them equality under the law as provided by "marriage" and why do you consider such equality as EXTRA rights???

 

[Gadawg73]

I was born and raised in the deep south as a straight, white country boy. I still am.
I have worked for many large national law firms for many years. Some with over 120 attorneys in their Atlanta offices.
I have worked for over 20 gay lawyers over the years. Some were married in other states.
Who cares? An old country lawyer put it to me like this in 1983: "Dawg, you have a lot of potential. However, you need to treat and respect everyone the same. Gay, black, white, straight, whatever. We are all the same. Gay folks just happen to fall in love with people of the same sex as them. Get over it. They are good people and some of them are not, just like straight folk"
And he was right. The myth is that all gays want is sex. Truth is they want lasting relationships with who they love just like straight folks do.
Gays. What a non issue. Let them get married and be miserable like the rest of us.

 

[The Rabbi]

What extra rights??? The right to love someone?

Is anyone telling them they can't love someone? Not me. Not anyone I know.
Is anyone telling them they can't get married? Not me. Not anyone Iknow.
Is anyone telling them they can't marry a single adult person of the opposite sex not related to them? Not me, not anyone I know.
They have exactly the same rights as you and me. Now they want extra.
I'll give them rights: Vaseline at 40% off.

But SOME people...your fellow citizens...good people...law abiding people...do not actually love anyone of the opposite sex, in fact they love someone of the same sex.


When ANY loving couple wants to enter into committed partnership they have every right and freedom to do so, despite your personal opinion of them.

So, the question is...Why do you think YOU have a right to deny them equality under the law as provided by "marriage" and why do you consider such equality as EXTRA rights???

You seem fixated on this idea that gays are being denied the opportunity to love, cohabit and procreate with their chosen partners. No one is doing anything of the sort. No one is denying them the opportunity to marry. They are free to marry.
They are not free to get rights and privileges that the rest of us do not have. I can't marry anyone I want. My wife would kill me. Does that mean society is denying me my rights? No, I dont think so.

 

[Valerie]

Is anyone telling them they can't love someone? Not me. Not anyone I know.
Is anyone telling them they can't get married? Not me. Not anyone Iknow.
Is anyone telling them they can't marry a single adult person of the opposite sex not related to them? Not me, not anyone I know.
They have exactly the same rights as you and me. Now they want extra.
I'll give them rights: Vaseline at 40% off.

But SOME people...your fellow citizens...good people...law abiding people...do not actually love anyone of the opposite sex, in fact they love someone of the same sex.


When ANY loving couple wants to enter into committed partnership they have every right and freedom to do so, despite your personal opinion of them.

So, the question is...Why do you think YOU have a right to deny them equality under the law as provided by "marriage" and why do you consider such equality as EXTRA rights???

You seem fixated on this idea that gays are being denied the opportunity to love, cohabit and procreate with their chosen partners. No one is doing anything of the sort.

No one is denying them the opportunity to marry. They are free to marry.
They are not free to get rights and privileges that the rest of us do not have.


I can't marry anyone I want. My wife would kill me. Does that mean society is denying me my rights? No, I dont think so.

Wrong, you seem fixated on YOU.



So I take it you can't answer my question???

I highlighted it in blue for ya!

 

[Gadawg73]

You can divorce your wife and marry anyone you want.
You know that. Why make up a dumb ass statement when you know it was a dumbass statement before you posted it?

 

[The Rabbi]

But SOME people...your fellow citizens...good people...law abiding people...do not actually love anyone of the opposite sex, in fact they love someone of the same sex.


When ANY loving couple wants to enter into committed partnership they have every right and freedom to do so, despite your personal opinion of them.

So, the question is...Why do you think YOU have a right to deny them equality under the law as provided by "marriage" and why do you consider such equality as EXTRA rights???

You seem fixated on this idea that gays are being denied the opportunity to love, cohabit and procreate with their chosen partners. No one is doing anything of the sort.

No one is denying them the opportunity to marry. They are free to marry.
They are not free to get rights and privileges that the rest of us do not have.


I can't marry anyone I want. My wife would kill me. Does that mean society is denying me my rights? No, I dont think so.

Wrong, you seem fixated on YOU.



So I take it you can't answer my question???

I highlighted it in blue for ya!

Why do I have that right? Because I am LORD HIGH EVERYTHING ELSE. That's why.
You have not answered my objection to your absurd question. You still seem to believe that gays are being denied something because that's what you've been told by the gay-stream media and their fellow travellers.
It is a lie.
Now, please explain why gays can't marry. I personally know two women with a marriage certificate in their house in a state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Where does anyone say that gays can't marry?

 

[FireGod]

Just so it stays on track with the real issue.

Why is it that gays are not allowed to have the same legal/financial benefits that are inherent in what the state calls marriage with out jumping through a bunch of hoops. There is a disconnect in here for a lot of people.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

any two adults should be able to enter into a legal contract, regardless of sex.

You mean just like a cell phone contract.....?

 

[Valerie]

You seem fixated on this idea that gays are being denied the opportunity to love, cohabit and procreate with their chosen partners. No one is doing anything of the sort.

No one is denying them the opportunity to marry. They are free to marry.
They are not free to get rights and privileges that the rest of us do not have.


I can't marry anyone I want. My wife would kill me. Does that mean society is denying me my rights? No, I dont think so.

Wrong, you seem fixated on YOU.



So I take it you can't answer my question???

I highlighted it in blue for ya!

Why do I have that right? Because I am LORD HIGH EVERYTHING ELSE. That's why.
You have not answered my objection to your absurd question. You still seem to believe that gays are being denied something because that's what you've been told by the gay-stream media and their fellow travellers.
It is a lie.

Now, please explain why gays can't marry. I personally know two women with a marriage certificate in their house in a state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Where does anyone say that gays can't marry?

Okay, so you think my question is absurd and I think your answer is absurd.


Why are you asking ME to explain why gays can't marry??? I clearly have no objection to gay marriage, so I offer you no explanation.


The fact remains, in most states homosexual couples do not have the same legal status as heterosexual couples and all the benefits that being "married" legally conveys.



YOU posted that you felt gays were asking for EXTRA rights.

Looks like you have no answer as to..........HOW SO???

 

[The Rabbi]

Just so it stays on track with the real issue.

Why is it that gays are not allowed to have the same legal/financial benefits that are inherent in what the state calls marriage with out jumping through a bunch of hoops. There is a disconnect in here for a lot of people.

You've answered your own question. The state calls it marriage. The state defines what that is. The state has an interest in doing so because certain unions tend to produce better citizens than other unions. And we don't live in a vacuum here but have a legacy of historical record from the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition, which defines marriage as one man, one woman.
And for those saying the state has no business defining marriage, does the state have business assigning inheritance? Does it have business assigning child custody? Does it have business administering bankruptcy? Does it have business defining and enforcing property rights? Because all of those are tied up in marriage in one way or another.

 

[Valerie]

Just so it stays on track with the real issue.

Why is it that gays are not allowed to have the same legal/financial benefits that are inherent in what the state calls marriage with out jumping through a bunch of hoops. There is a disconnect in here for a lot of people.

You've answered your own question. The state calls it marriage. The state defines what that is. The state has an interest in doing so because certain unions tend to produce better citizens than other unions. And we don't live in a vacuum here but have a legacy of historical record from the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition, which defines marriage as one man, one woman.
And for those saying the state has no business defining marriage, does the state have business assigning inheritance? Does it have business assigning child custody? Does it have business administering bankruptcy? Does it have business defining and enforcing property rights? Because all of those are tied up in marriage in one way or another.

In one breath you say no one is stopping them from marrying and in the next breath you say this??? You're all over the road.


The state can do all of those things and as long as all citizens are protected equally under the law there is no problem.

Now, in reality (as in, not a vacuum) law abiding citizens who happen to be homosexual exist, whether you like it or not, they exist in your town, your state, your country...

The state can not exclude legal relationships based on religious tradition.


Since we live in a free country and citizens are FREE to be in a committed partnership with whomever they love, they have every right to ask their states for equal access to that which is provided to heterosexual couples under current marriage laws.

So again, asking for equality under the law is not asking for ANYthing EXTRA!

Call it Civil Union, fine, but one way or another they have a right to be protected equally under the law.

 

[rightwinger]

Just so it stays on track with the real issue.

Why is it that gays are not allowed to have the same legal/financial benefits that are inherent in what the state calls marriage with out jumping through a bunch of hoops. There is a disconnect in here for a lot of people.

You've answered your own question. The state calls it marriage. The state defines what that is. The state has an interest in doing so because certain unions tend to produce better citizens than other unions. And we don't live in a vacuum here but have a legacy of historical record from the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition, which defines marriage as one man, one woman.And for those saying the state has no business defining marriage, does the state have business assigning inheritance? Does it have business assigning child custody? Does it have business administering bankruptcy? Does it have business defining and enforcing property rights? Because all of those are tied up in marriage in one way or another.

I get your point now...

Because there have never been gay marriages, the states can only rely on the legacy of the Judeo-Christian historical record.

So all those instances of Judeo-Christian divorce, wife abuse, murders and infidelity should be used to help define your "legacy"

 

[FireGod]

Just so it stays on track with the real issue.

Why is it that gays are not allowed to have the same legal/financial benefits that are inherent in what the state calls marriage with out jumping through a bunch of hoops. There is a disconnect in here for a lot of people.

You've answered your own question. The state calls it marriage. The state defines what that is. The state has an interest in doing so because certain unions tend to produce better citizens than other unions. And we don't live in a vacuum here but have a legacy of historical record from the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition, which defines marriage as one man, one woman.
And for those saying the state has no business defining marriage, does the state have business assigning inheritance? Does it have business assigning child custody? Does it have business administering bankruptcy? Does it have business defining and enforcing property rights? Because all of those are tied up in marriage in one way or another.

Congratulations you have taken upon yourself the burden of proof with this statement:
The state has an interest in doing so because certain unions tend to produce better citizens than other unions.
I refuse to acknowledge any religious texts for this one.

Also I would like to see proof on this: And we don't live in a vacuum here but have a legacy of historical record from the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition, which defines marriage as one man, one woman. And feel free to use the bible oh please do <--- is a warning not to by the way.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am not going to go to the trouble of searching for studies which show that children raised in two parent families have fewer problems and are generally more succesful in life. If you can demonstrate that this isn't the case then do so.
As to the other, please show which European culture allowed gay marriage. The Romans did not. The Greeks did not. If you want to say we aren't bound by precedent, that is an argument. If you want to say the precedent doesn't exist, the you're full of shit.