Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[Seawytch]

did you even read the article? yes, some young animals have been shown engaging in various forms of homosexual experimentation, much like most humans do in their early years. then the vast majority of them mature and grow out of it. There has never been a study that showed mature mammals other than humans engaged in homosexual behavior.

but we have been round and round on this before. we will never agree so why waste time?

Wrong.
"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

You seem to be wrong quite often.

Yeah, and some animals piss on their faces to attract a mate. Still others eat their mate or their young. If someone calls a homosexual "not right", you want to compare yourself to animals, and you think you are making sense?

Most animals mate only for procreation. And?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

If marriage "benefits" are granted to same sex unions, elderly people will marry the same sex relatives to avoid inheritance tax and game Social Security for "survivor benefits". It will bankrupt Social Security. It will reduce the amount of tax income to the gov't (not that reduction in taxes would be a bad thing, but it would result in the gov't taxing others to make up the difference, so much for the "fair share" theory). When Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated as a result, how "generous" do you think the elderly will be towards those on welfare and food stamps. Those "charitable" programs will end up cut also. This will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty. Society will be an absolute mess. The country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals. It will be really ugly.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

That a right might be potentially abused is not justification for preempting or denying that right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you are wrong, sea-twitch, I really find it amusing that you post something from a gay website as validation of your position.

Simply proclaiming someone else is wrong without providing facts to support your proclamation is worthless.

Back up your claim by showing that "civil unions and mutual support contracts" provide gay couples the exact same rights, privileges, and benefits as marriage does.

If you cannot, then you cannot say they are equal; hence your proclamation is baseless and therefore worth diddly squat.

who gives a shit? dont swordfight and you wont have to worry about it, Guys should order the pink taco and chicks should order the sausage....

Your mental age is about 12, correct?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Let them marry.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wrong.
"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

You seem to be wrong quite often.

Yeah, and some animals piss on their faces to attract a mate. Still others eat their mate or their young. If someone calls a homosexual "not right", you want to compare yourself to animals, and you think you are making sense?

Most animals mate only for procreation. And?

Yep,

Humans screw just to screw!

 

[PJC]

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

If marriage "benefits" are granted to same sex unions, elderly people will marry the same sex relatives to avoid inheritance tax and game Social Security for "survivor benefits". It will bankrupt Social Security. It will reduce the amount of tax income to the gov't (not that reduction in taxes would be a bad thing, but it would result in the gov't taxing others to make up the difference, so much for the "fair share" theory). When Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated as a result, how "generous" do you think the elderly will be towards those on welfare and food stamps. Those "charitable" programs will end up cut also. This will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty. Society will be an absolute mess. The country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals. It will be really ugly.

Wow! Those are some pretty illogical assumptions you’ve come up with. 1st, your entire argument here is one huge irrational slippery slope fallacy and is worthless bunk. You present leaps of “logic” assigning cause and effect with no realistic basis. What evidence have you to show that same sex marriage will automatically mandate that relatives be allowed to marry each other? Has it happened in any country that has had same sex marriage for a while? No? Then you have only your baseless presumption; which is therefore worthless.

Secondly, what evidence have you to show that same sex relatives will marry to avoid inheritance tax and game SS for survivor benefits will do so in such large numbers that it will bankrupt SS? What evidence have you to show that the elderly will stop being “generous”? Why do you assume that only elderly are generous? Why do you assume that all elderly everywhere will stop giving all money to welfare and food stamps? Why do you assume that younger people (middle aged and young adults in their 20s and 30s) never give to those programs?

Since your assumptions here lack even the most basic logic and common sense and have no realistic cause and effect established, then you cannot conclude that those “charitable" programs will end up cut”; nor can you conclude that “this will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty”; nor can you conclude that “society will be an absolute mess”. You cannot conclude that “the country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals” and you cannot conclude that “it will be really ugly”.

But….

What you're saying is that you cannot find any direct compelling State interest for disallowing same sex marriage except for the fact that you claim it will lead to same sex marriages amongst relatives? I see. And you "predict" all manner of evil if relatives are allowed to marry which would present a compelling State interest for disallowing.

Ok.

Let’s play your game for a bit. Assuming that even some of your predictions would come true:

Under Strict Scrutiny, (specifically the “narrowly tailored” and the “least restrictive” portions) your argument would mandate that the US can allow same sex marriage since it (by itself) does not have a compelling State interest justifying disallowing it; but the US can disallow same sex relatives from being able to marry since there is (at least according to your “predictions&#8221 a compelling State interest which would justify it being disallowed.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with Strict Scrutiny and the “narrowly tailored” and “least restrictive” portions of same; or for those who can’t remember their civics courses, here is a refresher:

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right (for example: marriage has been deemed as such by the SCOTUS) protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. (Your “predictions”, if they had any basis in reality and logic, would therefore justify a compelling govt interest).

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

And third, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately

Hence, to be the least restrictive and the most narrowly tailored, the govt would allow same sex marriage (since by itself there is no compelling state interest for disallowing it), but they could disallow same sex relatives from marrying each other because that would be the most narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to satisfy the govt’s compelling interest.

Strict Scrutiny

Thank you.

 

[PJC]

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

My partner and I have children. So do 40,000 gay couples in CA alone.

In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for legal, civil marriage?

Most "traditional marriages" have children as a result of the marriage. If it is a marriage in later years, the spouses, typically are supporting children from one or both spouses. Homosexuals cannot produce children from each other. They make a conscience choice to bring a child into the world without a "real" parent (the gender they reject). They are not burdened with the financial responsibility of children, unless they go to great efforts to do so.

Relevence?

If "same sex unions" are legalized, how will you prevent people that are the same sex (that do not want an intimate relationship) from abusing the system.

How do we prevent people that are the opposite sex (that do not want an intimate relationship) from abusing he system?

Social Security will be a prize that will have more elderly scammed or abused to get.

Opposite Sex couples can do the same now. Since there are significantly more heterosexual people than there are homosexual people, what would stop heterosexual people from marrying someone from the opposite sex to “scam” and “abuse” the elderly? Why would they have to marry the same sex to do that? Your claim doesn’t pass the common sense test.

Relatives will marry to get those benefits, as well as avoid inheritance tax (incest does not apply for same sex). Our country is $16,000,000,000 in debt. There is not money for "new" gov't handouts. There will not be money to take care of the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped in the future. It appears the homosexuals are selfishly trying to take from those people because of choices they made for themselves.

The Narrowly Tailored and Least Restrictive portions of the Strict Scrutiny clause from the 14th Amendment could be used (if your “predictions” were valid) to allow same sex marriages while still being able to disallow same sex relatives from marrying.

Strict Scrutiny under Constitutional Law stops your slippery slope fallacy dead in its tracks. Sorry.

Next?

 

[PJC]

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Explain how. (using fact and logic this time, not fallacy and prediction based solely upon your prejudices and presumptions.)

We'll wait.....

Explain to us how much civil unions will cost the taxpayers (that means less for the "poor children", the elderly, and the handicapped).

Why should I explain anything to you when you haven’t yet answered my question? You evade and deflect, which indicates perhaps you may be unable to logically and factually answer my questions.

But seeyun’s how I’m such a swell guy; I’ll answer your questions, in the hopes that you will do the honorable and honest thing by then answering my question which I’ve already asked you.

Civil unions, or actually same sex marriages will not cost taxpayers any additional money than opposite sex marriages. Logically, if an opposite sex marriage costs the taxpayers X amount of dollars (we’ll say $1000 for the sake of argument) then since gays are not going to engage in opposite sex marriage, and only engage in same sex marriage, it will cost the same amount of money: $1000. Hence marriages in general will cost the taxpayers the same regardless whether they are opposite or same sex, then there is no legitimate reason to disallow one type of marriage and allow the other type of marriage. That is unless you’re saying we should disallow all marriages since they all equally “cost the taxpayers (that means less for the “poor children”, the elderly, and the handicapped).”

Explain how you or the gov't will stop people of the same sex from marrying to get benefits when there is no intimate relationship [example 2 bachelors get married, by a huge place, live as room mates, have girlfriends, have babies (no daddy means welfare), get tax breaks, when their children are grown, they can sell the house, divorce, marry their grown children, and start a new cycle].

Explain how you or the govt will stop people of the opposite sex from marrying to get benefits when there is no intimate relationship [example a guy and a girl get married, buy a huge place, live as roommates, have girlfriends and boyfriends, have babies (no daddy means welfare), get tax breaks, when their children are grown, they can sell the house, divorce, marry other people and start a new cycle.

As for your “marrying their grown children” portion, that was already answered by “strict scrutiny”.

I cannot provide you with facts.

Exactly. You have no facts. Only your opinions based solely upon your presumptions, assumptions, fallacies, and prejudices. This means your opinions are worth little to nothing.

In the history of the world, same sex "legal unions" have never been part of societal foundations.

Incorrect. You need to research same sex unions throughout history.

It has never had widespread acceptance. That might be because you must be "corrupt" (not honorable) to participate in homosexual acts. If the corruption is in the most basic part of your person, it spreads into other areas of your life as well.

I disagree. I have met numerous gays and lesbians. They have been far less corrupt and much more honorable than many straight people I have met. And vastly more honorable than prejudiced people who harbor irrational hatred for an entire group of people who have never done them ill. Bigoted hatred is far more corrupt and dishonorable. Furthermore, I’ve found when those corrupt, bigotedly hateful homophobes and racists try to rationalize and justify their hatred, they tend to use deceit, disrespect, disloyalty, timidity, and selfishness in their attempt to paint their animosity as somehow logical and justified. Thus they sink further and further into the abyss of corruption and dishonor.

There are no "homosexual cities, counties or countries" to use as a standard.

In other words you are making predictions based upon nothing more than your own prejudices, not fact. Thus your predictions are worth diddly squat.

It is another example of some "intellectual elite" saying "communism is a great system". On paper, it looks great, in reality...... not so much.

Actually it is not like that at all. Why? For the simple reason that communism has been shown historically to be a bad system. There have been and still are communist “cities, counties or countries to use as a standard.” Therefore for communism, you can legitimately say, “On paper, it looks great, in reality...... not so much. “

But you cannot, by your own admission, say the same for homosexuality: “On paper, it looks great, in reality...... not so much.” because you have no “reality” to base your opinion off of…as you yourself said, you cannot provide me with any facts. Meaning you cannot provide me with any reality.

Only your fantasy.

And I gotta tell you, your fantasy is irrational, illogical, and nonsensical. It has not a smidgen of reality in it, whatsoever.

 

[PJC]

did you even read the article? yes, some young animals have been shown engaging in various forms of homosexual experimentation, much like most humans do in their early years. then the vast majority of them mature and grow out of it. There has never been a study that showed mature mammals other than humans engaged in homosexual behavior.

but we have been round and round on this before. we will never agree so why waste time?

Wrong.
"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

You seem to be wrong quite often.

Yeah, and some animals piss on their faces to attract a mate. Still others eat their mate or their young. If someone calls a homosexual "not right", you want to compare yourself to animals, and you think you are making sense?

Your argument is irrelevent to the original premise made which was the claim that "homosexuality is not found in the animal kingdom. and remember when it comes down to it we are just animals with large brains."

He was proven wrong, it is found in the animal kingdom. No one was using that fact to say we should behave like animals; it was merely used to rebut the original claim.

What you're doing is called "moving the goal posts".

Narrow Minded Bigot: Homosexuality is not natural, you don't see animals doing it, and humans are merely animals after all so we must compare ourselves with animals in that respect."

Rationalist: Wrong, homosexuality occurs naturally amongst a huge variety of animals, thus it is indeed natural.

Narrow Minded Bigot's Narrow Minded Buddy: .
....Oh.....wellll....um......er.....ahem....ulp....
well, you see.....um....animals do all types of nasty stuff, and we aren't animals so we mustn't compare ourselves with them because it doesn't make any sense!

sorry, you fellers can't have it both ways. either compare with animals or do not. don't go losing an argument, then changing the parameters further and further each time you lose.

you guys just ain't all that rational or logical, is you?

 

[logical4u]

My partner and I have children. So do 40,000 gay couples in CA alone.

In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for legal, civil marriage?

Most "traditional marriages" have children as a result of the marriage. If it is a marriage in later years, the spouses, typically are supporting children from one or both spouses. Homosexuals cannot produce children from each other. They make a conscience choice to bring a child into the world without a "real" parent (the gender they reject). They are not burdened with the financial responsibility of children, unless they go to great efforts to do so.

You sure about your claim...that "most" heterosexual married couples have children? (Being marriaged and having or not having chidren - Wichita Falls Marriage | Examiner.com) And you didn't answer the question. In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for civil marriage? Are the elderly or the sterile prohibited from legal marriage in ANY state?

If "same sex unions" are legalized, how will you prevent people that are the same sex (that do not want an intimate relationship) from abusing the system. Social Security will be a prize that will have more elderly scammed or abused to get. Relatives will marry to get those benefits, as well as avoid inheritance tax (incest does not apply for same sex). Our country is $16,000,000,000 in debt. There is not money for "new" gov't handouts. There will not be money to take care of the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped in the future. It appears the homosexuals are selfishly trying to take from those people because of choices they made for themselves.

Nothing is stopping people from doing that now. You don't mind if I marry a guy do you? That would be okay with you, right? Isn't that the right y'all say "the gheys" already have, we can marry someone of the opposite sex? (Even though we have no desire to do so) Nothing is stopping me from marrying a gay guy,right?

I can't believe you are seriously trying to use SS as a reason not to give gays equal access to legal marriage.

You must be a non-religious homophobe.

Marriage is looked on as "special". It is used to unite families and communities. Those that are married contribute to the community by having children, and supporting the family members.

Same-sex unions cannot do that. There is deceit from the beginning. There is dishonor from the beginning. There is "coveting" from the beginning. All of these things are terrible for "marriage".

Same-sex unions are by their very nature selfish. There is not consideration for what their "partner's" family is going thru. There is not consideration for what their family is going thru. There is not consideration for children that have systematically had their biological parent cut out of their life. (it is more like a pot-smoking party, where the participants, say, hey wouldn't it be cool if....., and those that aren't high, realize they are really, really stoned, and make no sense whatsoever)

Same-sex unions bring nothing to the table of the community (if they had, they would have been accepted eons, ago). When asked about the corruption and problems that will accompany same-sex unions, the reply is similar to a dope-smoker: but, it would be so cool (to the dope-smoker, and no one else).

 

[logical4u]

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

If marriage "benefits" are granted to same sex unions, elderly people will marry the same sex relatives to avoid inheritance tax and game Social Security for "survivor benefits". It will bankrupt Social Security. It will reduce the amount of tax income to the gov't (not that reduction in taxes would be a bad thing, but it would result in the gov't taxing others to make up the difference, so much for the "fair share" theory). When Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated as a result, how "generous" do you think the elderly will be towards those on welfare and food stamps. Those "charitable" programs will end up cut also. This will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty. Society will be an absolute mess. The country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals. It will be really ugly.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

That a right might be potentially abused is not justification for preempting or denying that right.

Where is the "right" to marriage?

You cannot "marry" without another person's permission. You cannot marry when the "community" is against you (or at least your marriage will not last if you do so).
There are hundreds of millions of people that would like to be married. Some find a spouse, some do not.

You, nor anyone else has the "right" to marriage. It is an earned responsibility.

 

[logical4u]

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

If marriage "benefits" are granted to same sex unions, elderly people will marry the same sex relatives to avoid inheritance tax and game Social Security for "survivor benefits". It will bankrupt Social Security. It will reduce the amount of tax income to the gov't (not that reduction in taxes would be a bad thing, but it would result in the gov't taxing others to make up the difference, so much for the "fair share" theory). When Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated as a result, how "generous" do you think the elderly will be towards those on welfare and food stamps. Those "charitable" programs will end up cut also. This will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty. Society will be an absolute mess. The country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals. It will be really ugly.

Wow! Those are some pretty illogical assumptions you’ve come up with. 1st, your entire argument here is one huge irrational slippery slope fallacy and is worthless bunk. You present leaps of “logic” assigning cause and effect with no realistic basis. What evidence have you to show that same sex marriage will automatically mandate that relatives be allowed to marry each other? Has it happened in any country that has had same sex marriage for a while? No? Then you have only your baseless presumption; which is therefore worthless.

Secondly, what evidence have you to show that same sex relatives will marry to avoid inheritance tax and game SS for survivor benefits will do so in such large numbers that it will bankrupt SS? What evidence have you to show that the elderly will stop being “generous”? Why do you assume that only elderly are generous? Why do you assume that all elderly everywhere will stop giving all money to welfare and food stamps? Why do you assume that younger people (middle aged and young adults in their 20s and 30s) never give to those programs?

Since your assumptions here lack even the most basic logic and common sense and have no realistic cause and effect established, then you cannot conclude that those “charitable" programs will end up cut”; nor can you conclude that “this will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty”; nor can you conclude that “society will be an absolute mess”. You cannot conclude that “the country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals” and you cannot conclude that “it will be really ugly”.

But….

What you're saying is that you cannot find any direct compelling State interest for disallowing same sex marriage except for the fact that you claim it will lead to same sex marriages amongst relatives? I see. And you "predict" all manner of evil if relatives are allowed to marry which would present a compelling State interest for disallowing.

Ok.

Let’s play your game for a bit. Assuming that even some of your predictions would come true:

Under Strict Scrutiny, (specifically the “narrowly tailored” and the “least restrictive” portions) your argument would mandate that the US can allow same sex marriage since it (by itself) does not have a compelling State interest justifying disallowing it; but the US can disallow same sex relatives from being able to marry since there is (at least according to your “predictions”) a compelling State interest which would justify it being disallowed.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with Strict Scrutiny and the “narrowly tailored” and “least restrictive” portions of same; or for those who can’t remember their civics courses, here is a refresher:

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right (for example: marriage has been deemed as such by the SCOTUS) protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. (Your “predictions”, if they had any basis in reality and logic, would therefore justify a compelling govt interest).

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

And third, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately

Hence, to be the least restrictive and the most narrowly tailored, the govt would allow same sex marriage (since by itself there is no compelling state interest for disallowing it), but they could disallow same sex relatives from marrying each other because that would be the most narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to satisfy the govt’s compelling interest.

Strict Scrutiny

Thank you.

On your words, since their is NO compelling gov't interest in having same sex couples, there should be no same-sex unions

 

[Seawytch]

If marriage "benefits" are granted to same sex unions, elderly people will marry the same sex relatives to avoid inheritance tax and game Social Security for "survivor benefits". It will bankrupt Social Security. It will reduce the amount of tax income to the gov't (not that reduction in taxes would be a bad thing, but it would result in the gov't taxing others to make up the difference, so much for the "fair share" theory). When Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated as a result, how "generous" do you think the elderly will be towards those on welfare and food stamps. Those "charitable" programs will end up cut also. This will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty. Society will be an absolute mess. The country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals. It will be really ugly.

Wow! Those are some pretty illogical assumptions you’ve come up with. 1st, your entire argument here is one huge irrational slippery slope fallacy and is worthless bunk. You present leaps of “logic” assigning cause and effect with no realistic basis. What evidence have you to show that same sex marriage will automatically mandate that relatives be allowed to marry each other? Has it happened in any country that has had same sex marriage for a while? No? Then you have only your baseless presumption; which is therefore worthless.

Secondly, what evidence have you to show that same sex relatives will marry to avoid inheritance tax and game SS for survivor benefits will do so in such large numbers that it will bankrupt SS? What evidence have you to show that the elderly will stop being “generous”? Why do you assume that only elderly are generous? Why do you assume that all elderly everywhere will stop giving all money to welfare and food stamps? Why do you assume that younger people (middle aged and young adults in their 20s and 30s) never give to those programs?

Since your assumptions here lack even the most basic logic and common sense and have no realistic cause and effect established, then you cannot conclude that those “charitable" programs will end up cut”; nor can you conclude that “this will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty”; nor can you conclude that “society will be an absolute mess”. You cannot conclude that “the country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals” and you cannot conclude that “it will be really ugly”.

But….

What you're saying is that you cannot find any direct compelling State interest for disallowing same sex marriage except for the fact that you claim it will lead to same sex marriages amongst relatives? I see. And you "predict" all manner of evil if relatives are allowed to marry which would present a compelling State interest for disallowing.

Ok.

Let’s play your game for a bit. Assuming that even some of your predictions would come true:

Under Strict Scrutiny, (specifically the “narrowly tailored” and the “least restrictive” portions) your argument would mandate that the US can allow same sex marriage since it (by itself) does not have a compelling State interest justifying disallowing it; but the US can disallow same sex relatives from being able to marry since there is (at least according to your “predictions”) a compelling State interest which would justify it being disallowed.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with Strict Scrutiny and the “narrowly tailored” and “least restrictive” portions of same; or for those who can’t remember their civics courses, here is a refresher:

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right (for example: marriage has been deemed as such by the SCOTUS) protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. (Your “predictions”, if they had any basis in reality and logic, would therefore justify a compelling govt interest).

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

And third, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately

Hence, to be the least restrictive and the most narrowly tailored, the govt would allow same sex marriage (since by itself there is no compelling state interest for disallowing it), but they could disallow same sex relatives from marrying each other because that would be the most narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to satisfy the govt’s compelling interest.

Strict Scrutiny

Thank you.

On your words, since their is NO compelling gov't interest in having same sex couples, there should be no same-sex unions

Ah, but it's those that oppose marriage equality that have to provide the compelling state reason to deny access to legal, civil marriage.

What is the compelling government interest in allowing murderers on death row to legally marry?

 

[ABikerSailor]

If marriage "benefits" are granted to same sex unions, elderly people will marry the same sex relatives to avoid inheritance tax and game Social Security for "survivor benefits". It will bankrupt Social Security. It will reduce the amount of tax income to the gov't (not that reduction in taxes would be a bad thing, but it would result in the gov't taxing others to make up the difference, so much for the "fair share" theory). When Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated as a result, how "generous" do you think the elderly will be towards those on welfare and food stamps. Those "charitable" programs will end up cut also. This will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty. Society will be an absolute mess. The country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals. It will be really ugly.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

That a right might be potentially abused is not justification for preempting or denying that right.

Where is the "right" to marriage?

You cannot "marry" without another person's permission. You cannot marry when the "community" is against you (or at least your marriage will not last if you do so).
There are hundreds of millions of people that would like to be married. Some find a spouse, some do not.

You, nor anyone else has the "right" to marriage. It is an earned responsibility.

"Earned responsibility"? Really?

What about the black people that wanted to marry white people in the 1950's?

The community was against that as well back then.

 

[PJC]

If marriage "benefits" are granted to same sex unions, elderly people will marry the same sex relatives to avoid inheritance tax and game Social Security for "survivor benefits". It will bankrupt Social Security. It will reduce the amount of tax income to the gov't (not that reduction in taxes would be a bad thing, but it would result in the gov't taxing others to make up the difference, so much for the "fair share" theory). When Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated as a result, how "generous" do you think the elderly will be towards those on welfare and food stamps. Those "charitable" programs will end up cut also. This will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty. Society will be an absolute mess. The country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals. It will be really ugly.

Wow! Those are some pretty illogical assumptions you’ve come up with. 1st, your entire argument here is one huge irrational slippery slope fallacy and is worthless bunk. You present leaps of “logic” assigning cause and effect with no realistic basis. What evidence have you to show that same sex marriage will automatically mandate that relatives be allowed to marry each other? Has it happened in any country that has had same sex marriage for a while? No? Then you have only your baseless presumption; which is therefore worthless.

Secondly, what evidence have you to show that same sex relatives will marry to avoid inheritance tax and game SS for survivor benefits will do so in such large numbers that it will bankrupt SS? What evidence have you to show that the elderly will stop being “generous”? Why do you assume that only elderly are generous? Why do you assume that all elderly everywhere will stop giving all money to welfare and food stamps? Why do you assume that younger people (middle aged and young adults in their 20s and 30s) never give to those programs?

Since your assumptions here lack even the most basic logic and common sense and have no realistic cause and effect established, then you cannot conclude that those “charitable" programs will end up cut”; nor can you conclude that “this will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty”; nor can you conclude that “society will be an absolute mess”. You cannot conclude that “the country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals” and you cannot conclude that “it will be really ugly”.

But….

What you're saying is that you cannot find any direct compelling State interest for disallowing same sex marriage except for the fact that you claim it will lead to same sex marriages amongst relatives? I see. And you "predict" all manner of evil if relatives are allowed to marry which would present a compelling State interest for disallowing.

Ok.

Let’s play your game for a bit. Assuming that even some of your predictions would come true:

Under Strict Scrutiny, (specifically the “narrowly tailored” and the “least restrictive” portions) your argument would mandate that the US can allow same sex marriage since it (by itself) does not have a compelling State interest justifying disallowing it; but the US can disallow same sex relatives from being able to marry since there is (at least according to your “predictions&#8221 a compelling State interest which would justify it being disallowed.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with Strict Scrutiny and the “narrowly tailored” and “least restrictive” portions of same; or for those who can’t remember their civics courses, here is a refresher:

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right (for example: marriage has been deemed as such by the SCOTUS) protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. (Your “predictions”, if they had any basis in reality and logic, would therefore justify a compelling govt interest).

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

And third, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately

Hence, to be the least restrictive and the most narrowly tailored, the govt would allow same sex marriage (since by itself there is no compelling state interest for disallowing it), but they could disallow same sex relatives from marrying each other because that would be the most narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to satisfy the govt’s compelling interest.

Strict Scrutiny

Thank you.

On your words, since their is NO compelling gov't interest in having same sex couples, there should be no same-sex unions

haha. (chuckle chuckle) No my simple friend, that's not how constitutional law works.

If so, the govt could deny all sorts of rights to us citizens for that same exact reason. There is no compelling govt interest in allowing you or I to move from one state to another just because you or I want to; hence they could disallow you and I that right if they used your rather inane and poorly thought out idea. Jeez imagine the possibilities! The govt would indeed be Big Brother. they could simply deny us anything...even our right to bear arms, simply by showing there is no compelling govt interest.

No, brother ( and i say this with the utmost amount of condesension dripping from my voice), compelling govt interest is not used to justify denying a right if that person cannot show compelling govt interest for having that right, but to justify denying a right if the govt can show compelling govt interest why they should be able to deny it.

Wow, you guys really suck at this whole logic and common sense thang, huh?

 

[PJC]

If marriage "benefits" are granted to same sex unions, elderly people will marry the same sex relatives to avoid inheritance tax and game Social Security for "survivor benefits". It will bankrupt Social Security. It will reduce the amount of tax income to the gov't (not that reduction in taxes would be a bad thing, but it would result in the gov't taxing others to make up the difference, so much for the "fair share" theory). When Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated as a result, how "generous" do you think the elderly will be towards those on welfare and food stamps. Those "charitable" programs will end up cut also. This will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty. Society will be an absolute mess. The country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals. It will be really ugly.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

That a right might be potentially abused is not justification for preempting or denying that right.

Where is the "right" to marriage?

Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution.

You cannot "marry" without another person's permission.

This does not disprove that marriage is a right. People cannot peacably assemble unless you got another person's permission to assemble with them. does that mean the Bill of Rights is wrong and you are right? I think not, sir.

You cannot marry when the "community" is against you (or at least your marriage will not last if you do so).

Your added "or at least" just negated your own argument here.

There are hundreds of millions of people that would like to be married. Some find a spouse, some do not.

there are hundreds of millions of people that would like to have a firearm. some can afford it, some cannot. does this mean that the right to bear arms is not a right anymore and that the Bill of Rights is wrong and you are right? I think not, sir.

You, nor anyone else has the "right" to marriage. It is an earned responsibility.

You, and i and everyone else has the right to marriage. It is a fundamental right and has been deemed so by the Supreme Court of the United States.

You are wrong.

Next?

 

[PJC]

Most "traditional marriages" have children as a result of the marriage. If it is a marriage in later years, the spouses, typically are supporting children from one or both spouses. Homosexuals cannot produce children from each other. They make a conscience choice to bring a child into the world without a "real" parent (the gender they reject). They are not burdened with the financial responsibility of children, unless they go to great efforts to do so.

You sure about your claim...that "most" heterosexual married couples have children? (Being marriaged and having or not having chidren - Wichita Falls Marriage | Examiner.com) And you didn't answer the question. In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for civil marriage? Are the elderly or the sterile prohibited from legal marriage in ANY state?

If "same sex unions" are legalized, how will you prevent people that are the same sex (that do not want an intimate relationship) from abusing the system. Social Security will be a prize that will have more elderly scammed or abused to get. Relatives will marry to get those benefits, as well as avoid inheritance tax (incest does not apply for same sex). Our country is $16,000,000,000 in debt. There is not money for "new" gov't handouts. There will not be money to take care of the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped in the future. It appears the homosexuals are selfishly trying to take from those people because of choices they made for themselves.

Nothing is stopping people from doing that now. You don't mind if I marry a guy do you? That would be okay with you, right? Isn't that the right y'all say "the gheys" already have, we can marry someone of the opposite sex? (Even though we have no desire to do so) Nothing is stopping me from marrying a gay guy,right?

I can't believe you are seriously trying to use SS as a reason not to give gays equal access to legal marriage.

You must be a non-religious homophobe.

Marriage is looked on as "special". It is used to unite families and communities. Those that are married contribute to the community by having children, and supporting the family members.

Same sex marriage is also looked on as “special”. It too, is used to unite families and communities. Those that are married in a same sex marriage, also contribute to the community by having children, and supporting the family members.

Same-sex unions cannot do that. There is deceit from the beginning. There is dishonor from the beginning. There is "coveting" from the beginning. All of these things are terrible for "marriage".

Same sex marriages can do that and do so all the time. How many same sex marriages do you know about intimately enough to say what they can and cannot do? There is no deceit any more so than from opposite sex marriages. There is no dishonor any more so than from opposite sex marriages. There is “coveting” no more or less so than from opposite sex marriages. What deceit, dishonor and coveting do you claim exists only in same sex marriages? How do you know these things exist? How many same sex married couples do you know? How have you figured out that those you do know have deceit, dishonor and coveting? Are you a mind reader and have been able to tell when they are lying or “coveting”? Or are you simply making a wild ass assumption based on nothing more than your prejudiced presumptions?

Same-sex unions are by their very nature selfish. There is not consideration for what their "partner's" family is going thru. There is not consideration for what their family is going thru. There is not consideration for children that have systematically had their biological parent cut out of their life. (it is more like a pot-smoking party, where the participants, say, hey wouldn't it be cool if....., and those that aren't high, realize they are really, really stoned, and make no sense whatsoever)

Same-sex marriages are not by their very nature selfish any more so than opposite sex marriages. There is consideration for what their partner’s family is going through. There is consideration for what their family is going through. There is just as much, if not more consideration for children if they have had their biological parent cut out of their life, than from divorced or separated opposite sex marriages who have had their biological parent cut out of their lives.

It is nothing like a pot-smoking party. Your analogy is ridiculous and makes no sense whatsoever. Try explaining what you’re trying to say here

How many same sex married couples do you know who had no consideration for their or their partner’s family or their children? How many same sex married couples told you they decided to get married just by saying “hey wouldn’t it be cool if….”?

How many? Or are you again simply making asininely groundless assumptions based on not a jot of logic or fact?

Same-sex unions bring nothing to the table of the community (if they had, they would have been accepted eons, ago). When asked about the corruption and problems that will accompany same-sex unions, the reply is similar to a dope-smoker: but, it would be so cool (to the dope-smoker, and no one else).

Same sex marriages bring just as much to the table of the community as opposite sex marriages. Your assumption of “if they had…” is illogical because prejudice and discrimination does not base itself upon whether the target of that prejudice brings something “to the table of the community”. People did not accept interracial marriages up until relatively recently, using your argument, those families must not have brought anything “to the table of the community”, else “they would have been accepted eons, ago”.

“When asked about the corruption and problems…blah blah blah…the reply is yadda yadda yadda”???

How many gay couples have you asked that question to and how many of them had the reply of “it would be so cool”?

I’d be willing to bet not very many, if any. You are again making an assumption based upon not a single iota of fact or logic.

Brother, your prejudices and fantasies have reeeeaaaalllllyyyy got you messed up inside.

You are one of the most illogical and irrational posters I’ve talked to in a while. Your logical4u handle does not fit you in the slightest.

Try some other bullshit, bruh. Your whacko stuff ain’t sellin’.

 

[logical4u]

Wow! Those are some pretty illogical assumptions you’ve come up with. 1st, your entire argument here is one huge irrational slippery slope fallacy and is worthless bunk. You present leaps of “logic” assigning cause and effect with no realistic basis. What evidence have you to show that same sex marriage will automatically mandate that relatives be allowed to marry each other? Has it happened in any country that has had same sex marriage for a while? No? Then you have only your baseless presumption; which is therefore worthless.

Secondly, what evidence have you to show that same sex relatives will marry to avoid inheritance tax and game SS for survivor benefits will do so in such large numbers that it will bankrupt SS? What evidence have you to show that the elderly will stop being “generous”? Why do you assume that only elderly are generous? Why do you assume that all elderly everywhere will stop giving all money to welfare and food stamps? Why do you assume that younger people (middle aged and young adults in their 20s and 30s) never give to those programs?

Since your assumptions here lack even the most basic logic and common sense and have no realistic cause and effect established, then you cannot conclude that those “charitable" programs will end up cut”; nor can you conclude that “this will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty”; nor can you conclude that “society will be an absolute mess”. You cannot conclude that “the country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals” and you cannot conclude that “it will be really ugly”.

But….

What you're saying is that you cannot find any direct compelling State interest for disallowing same sex marriage except for the fact that you claim it will lead to same sex marriages amongst relatives? I see. And you "predict" all manner of evil if relatives are allowed to marry which would present a compelling State interest for disallowing.

Ok.

Let’s play your game for a bit. Assuming that even some of your predictions would come true:

Under Strict Scrutiny, (specifically the “narrowly tailored” and the “least restrictive” portions) your argument would mandate that the US can allow same sex marriage since it (by itself) does not have a compelling State interest justifying disallowing it; but the US can disallow same sex relatives from being able to marry since there is (at least according to your “predictions”) a compelling State interest which would justify it being disallowed.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with Strict Scrutiny and the “narrowly tailored” and “least restrictive” portions of same; or for those who can’t remember their civics courses, here is a refresher:

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right (for example: marriage has been deemed as such by the SCOTUS) protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. (Your “predictions”, if they had any basis in reality and logic, would therefore justify a compelling govt interest).

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

And third, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately

Hence, to be the least restrictive and the most narrowly tailored, the govt would allow same sex marriage (since by itself there is no compelling state interest for disallowing it), but they could disallow same sex relatives from marrying each other because that would be the most narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to satisfy the govt’s compelling interest.

Strict Scrutiny

Thank you.

On your words, since their is NO compelling gov't interest in having same sex couples, there should be no same-sex unions

Ah, but it's those that oppose marriage equality that have to provide the compelling state reason to deny access to legal, civil marriage.

What is the compelling government interest in allowing murderers on death row to legally marry?

Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Re-defining a word for political agendas is absolute CORRUPTION (deceit, scam, dishonorable, etc).

Death row.... there is no law against it. Therefore it is unreasonable to pass more restrictive laws to stop it.

 

[logical4u]

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

That a right might be potentially abused is not justification for preempting or denying that right.

Where is the "right" to marriage?

You cannot "marry" without another person's permission. You cannot marry when the "community" is against you (or at least your marriage will not last if you do so).
There are hundreds of millions of people that would like to be married. Some find a spouse, some do not.

You, nor anyone else has the "right" to marriage. It is an earned responsibility.

"Earned responsibility"? Really?

What about the black people that wanted to marry white people in the 1950's?

The community was against that as well back then.

Yes! The community was against it, so it became a hardship. I am not saying it was right, it was the "community" that rejected it. In many, many other communities whites were marrying native Americans, Orientals, and blacks. It was no "big" deal. Just like in muslim communities the muslims reject their followers from marrying into other religions. The community has a huge say in what happens there. It is an earned responsibility. If you are a responsible part of the community, your marriage partner will not be questioned as intensely, as someone that is a "bum" and wants to marry into a supportive family of the community (because people have known for eons that corruption will spread, and it is not a good thing).

You are still comparing a "man" and a "woman" getting married to a "gender" and a "faux gender" getting married. It is in no way similar. It is a "corruption". Corruption spreads. It is a disease that eats and destroys cultures. Look at any civilization throughout history. The result is always the same. Corruption is "overlooked" in some circles. It spreads throughout society. The people are invaded or a tyrant rises to oppress everyone. Then it just stays that way.

This country was founded to LIMIT corruption. Why people want to legitimize corruption is something beyond my comprehension. It is the same people that complain about corruption in other areas of society that are saying, hey, this corruption is "good", it is for me.

 

[Seawytch]

On your words, since their is NO compelling gov't interest in having same sex couples, there should be no same-sex unions

Ah, but it's those that oppose marriage equality that have to provide the compelling state reason to deny access to legal, civil marriage.

What is the compelling government interest in allowing murderers on death row to legally marry?

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Where does the Constitution say that there must be a compelling government interest in granting something? The Lovings didn't have to demonstrate a compelling government interest in granting them the fundamental right to marry, those opposed to interracial marriage had to provide a compelling state reason to deny it. Do you understand?

Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Re-defining a word for political agendas is absolute CORRUPTION (deceit, scam, dishonorable, etc).

No, it isn't. Marriage in 9 (soon to be 10 or 11) states and something like 14 countries is between non familial consenting adults.

Was voting redefined when it was no longer white male landowners that could do it? No.

Death row.... there is no law against it. Therefore it is unreasonable to pass more restrictive laws to stop it.

You made the claim that to grant legal marriage, there must be a compelling state interest in doing so, right? How do you then explain Turner v Safley? Missouri tried to bar inmates from marrying. The SCOTUS said "oh no you can't". Where was the compelling state interest?