Wow: Daughter of two moms boldly speaks out AGAINST gay marriage

[Seawytch]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

No...we say it's a fundamental right unless the government can come up with a prevailing reason why providing such a right would cause harm. Got something?

"Marriage" has ALWAYS meant between a man and multiple women.

The original banning of this Fundamental Right was nothing but anti-Mormon bigotry.

It is not on polygamist to prove that they are not bad, it is on the government and the bigots, like Seawytch, to prove that their bigotry is based on anything but fear and ignorance.

Polygamy has already gone to the SCOTUS. You're welcome to take it back to them and, once again, I'll wish you the best of luck. I was a huge fan of Big Love.

First Nations, blah, blah blah,

What gives you the right to force your religion down the throats of other citizens? What about the Separation of Church and State blah, blah, blah?

Is this starting to sound familiar?

Church and state are separate.

 

[Seawytch]

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

Agreed. Go back 5

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

So? Lots of people have evolved on this issue, just look at the polls. Again, regardless of what he said, his ACTIONS are that of a champion of gay rights since his first day in office.

And I will say again, I know what he's done so what he has said is irrelevant. President Obama never once tried to take rights away from gay people regardless of what his previous statements had been.

Do you have a point with your Obama bad meme?

in the first quote he stated that he would fight against gay marriage. I don't know if he was ever called on to vote on the issue but he claimed if he was he would "try to take rights away" from gay people .

He did nothing of the sort. I'm not an asshole enough to call you a liar, I'll just say you're mistaken.

He did state it. I cut and pasted it.

Are you aware of all the gay activist legislation that came up for a vote during his long legislative career?

After all you know the media wouldn't tell you about it.

He never said he would "fight against gay marriage." You are mistaken.

Why don't you link to this legislation and how he voted on it?

Actually you're right, I did misread that one quote.

Here is more on his past opposition to gay marriage.

"Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996,[39] was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998,[40] and supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[39]Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believed that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[41] He supported civil unions that would establish legal standing equal to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions about the definition of marriage should be left to the states"


So, as late as 2008 he was a bigot, by your standards.

And I did not claim any specific legislation. I merely pointed out that he was against gay marriage while in the legislature, and that if he did vote against any gay friendly initiatives during that time, that the media would not tell you about it.

No, the bigot actively tries to take away gays and lesbians civil rights. Presdient Obama never did that. In fact, he's done everything he can to further them.

Yeah, that's MY kind of "bigot".

 

[Redfish]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

No...we say it's a fundamental right unless the government can come up with a prevailing reason why providing such a right would cause harm. Got something?

calling homosexuality a normal human condition will harm society as a whole. 95% of humans on planet earth agree with that.

 

[Redfish]

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

All of our rights have limitations. Not a one is unlimited or unrestricted. In order to limit a fundamental right, you must be able to show where allowing it would cause societal harm. If you don't believe that whatever you're advocating for causes societal harm, challenge the restriction in court.

how does multiple marriage cause any more societal harm than gay marriage. Both are perversions.

 

[Redfish]

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

Agreed. Go back 5

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

So? Lots of people have evolved on this issue, just look at the polls. Again, regardless of what he said, his ACTIONS are that of a champion of gay rights since his first day in office.

in the first quote he stated that he would fight against gay marriage. I don't know if he was ever called on to vote on the issue but he claimed if he was he would "try to take rights away" from gay people .

He did nothing of the sort. I'm not an asshole enough to call you a liar, I'll just say you're mistaken.

He did state it. I cut and pasted it.

Are you aware of all the gay activist legislation that came up for a vote during his long legislative career?

After all you know the media wouldn't tell you about it.

He never said he would "fight against gay marriage." You are mistaken.

Why don't you link to this legislation and how he voted on it?

Actually you're right, I did misread that one quote.

Here is more on his past opposition to gay marriage.

"Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996,[39] was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998,[40] and supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[39]Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believed that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[41] He supported civil unions that would establish legal standing equal to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions about the definition of marriage should be left to the states"


So, as late as 2008 he was a bigot, by your standards.

And I did not claim any specific legislation. I merely pointed out that he was against gay marriage while in the legislature, and that if he did vote against any gay friendly initiatives during that time, that the media would not tell you about it.

No, the bigot actively tries to take away gays and lesbians civil rights. Presdient Obama never did that. In fact, he's done everything he can to further them.

Yeah, that's MY kind of "bigot".

which civil right do you not have?

 

[Seawytch]

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

Agreed. Go back 5

So? Lots of people have evolved on this issue, just look at the polls. Again, regardless of what he said, his ACTIONS are that of a champion of gay rights since his first day in office.

He did nothing of the sort. I'm not an asshole enough to call you a liar, I'll just say you're mistaken.

He did state it. I cut and pasted it.

Are you aware of all the gay activist legislation that came up for a vote during his long legislative career?

After all you know the media wouldn't tell you about it.

He never said he would "fight against gay marriage." You are mistaken.

Why don't you link to this legislation and how he voted on it?

Actually you're right, I did misread that one quote.

Here is more on his past opposition to gay marriage.

"Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996,[39] was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998,[40] and supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[39]Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believed that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[41] He supported civil unions that would establish legal standing equal to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions about the definition of marriage should be left to the states"


So, as late as 2008 he was a bigot, by your standards.

And I did not claim any specific legislation. I merely pointed out that he was against gay marriage while in the legislature, and that if he did vote against any gay friendly initiatives during that time, that the media would not tell you about it.

No, the bigot actively tries to take away gays and lesbians civil rights. Presdient Obama never did that. In fact, he's done everything he can to further them.

Yeah, that's MY kind of "bigot".

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

 

[Seawytch]

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

All of our rights have limitations. Not a one is unlimited or unrestricted. In order to limit a fundamental right, you must be able to show where allowing it would cause societal harm. If you don't believe that whatever you're advocating for causes societal harm, challenge the restriction in court.

how does multiple marriage cause any more societal harm than gay marriage. Both are perversions.

Well there you go...you have the start of your challenge. Good luck!

 

[Redfish]

Agreed. Go back 5
He did state it. I cut and pasted it.

Are you aware of all the gay activist legislation that came up for a vote during his long legislative career?

After all you know the media wouldn't tell you about it.

He never said he would "fight against gay marriage." You are mistaken.

Why don't you link to this legislation and how he voted on it?

Actually you're right, I did misread that one quote.

Here is more on his past opposition to gay marriage.

"Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996,[39] was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998,[40] and supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[39]Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believed that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[41] He supported civil unions that would establish legal standing equal to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions about the definition of marriage should be left to the states"


So, as late as 2008 he was a bigot, by your standards.

And I did not claim any specific legislation. I merely pointed out that he was against gay marriage while in the legislature, and that if he did vote against any gay friendly initiatives during that time, that the media would not tell you about it.

No, the bigot actively tries to take away gays and lesbians civil rights. Presdient Obama never did that. In fact, he's done everything he can to further them.

Yeah, that's MY kind of "bigot".

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

 

[Redfish]

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

All of our rights have limitations. Not a one is unlimited or unrestricted. In order to limit a fundamental right, you must be able to show where allowing it would cause societal harm. If you don't believe that whatever you're advocating for causes societal harm, challenge the restriction in court.

how does multiple marriage cause any more societal harm than gay marriage. Both are perversions.

Well there you go...you have the start of your challenge. Good luck!

the ACLU already has the challenge in work. It will happen and if they have gay marriage as a legal precedent they will win.

 

[Michelle420]

It's simply her opinion and her experience alone obviously isn't evidence that every other child of a homosexual couple feels the same way. My sister is a lesbian and her two daughters are very happy, well rounded children as I would gather most children of homosexual couples are.

Agreed.

Emily added the boldly" part Lots of kids speak out against their parents.

Some kids get older and say their parents shoved religion down their throat and they feel life would have been better growing up religion free.

Other Kids say divorced parents wrecked their life. Some kids say their parents fought all the time and they wished they had divorced.

Other kids report their parents pushed them to hard to be perfect, or their parents neglected them.

What about kids who experience racism from society because of being raised in a bi racial family.

Now a kid is upset about her lesbian parents, ust another new complaint from a kid.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

No...we say it's a fundamental right unless the government can come up with a prevailing reason why providing such a right would cause harm. Got something?

calling homosexuality a normal human condition will harm society as a whole. 95% of humans on planet earth agree with that.

No, they don't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He never said he would "fight against gay marriage." You are mistaken.

Why don't you link to this legislation and how he voted on it?

Actually you're right, I did misread that one quote.

Here is more on his past opposition to gay marriage.

"Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996,[39] was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998,[40] and supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[39]Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believed that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[41] He supported civil unions that would establish legal standing equal to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions about the definition of marriage should be left to the states"


So, as late as 2008 he was a bigot, by your standards.

And I did not claim any specific legislation. I merely pointed out that he was against gay marriage while in the legislature, and that if he did vote against any gay friendly initiatives during that time, that the media would not tell you about it.

No, the bigot actively tries to take away gays and lesbians civil rights. Presdient Obama never did that. In fact, he's done everything he can to further them.

Yeah, that's MY kind of "bigot".

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

The people do not get a say in this matter, we don't have mob rule here. Their opinion matter not, either way.

Time to suck it up, you lost. Get over it.

 

[bendog]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

No...we say it's a fundamental right unless the government can come up with a prevailing reason why providing such a right would cause harm. Got something?

"Marriage" has ALWAYS meant between a man and multiple women.

The original banning of this Fundamental Right was nothing but anti-Mormon bigotry.

It is not on polygamist to prove that they are not bad, it is on the government and the bigots, like Seawytch, to prove that their bigotry is based on anything but fear and ignorance.

First Nations, blah, blah blah,

What gives you the right to force your religion down the throats of other citizens? What about the Separation of Church and State blah, blah, blah?

Is this starting to sound familiar?

Until society itself changed, there really was a legitimate state interest in preventing mixed race marriages. It wasn't seen as bigotry so much as keeping social norms as the prevailing social mores at the time believed. The Supreme Court upheld the ban on polygamy, but the issue was whether the ban ran afoul of the free exercise of religion. We will probably see what the courts decide in time.

 

[Correll]

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

All of our rights have limitations. Not a one is unlimited or unrestricted. In order to limit a fundamental right, you must be able to show where allowing it would cause societal harm. If you don't believe that whatever you're advocating for causes societal harm, challenge the restriction in court.

How about we start with you admitting that you lied about the meaning of the word marriage in that you kept claiming it always meant two people?

After all, it's not like you gays didn't mount an effective public "debate" campaign before you started winning court cases.

Why did you lie about that? Is it because of your religion? It is isn't it?

You were probably raised Christian, and even if you rebelled in other ways, you still want to base laws on your mainstream Christian beliefs against polygamy.

Also were do you get off dismissing the FIrst Nation traditions and laws that were the law of the land far before Evul White people took their land?

Do you think being more vicious and bloodthirsty makes your laws better?

 

[Correll]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

No...we say it's a fundamental right unless the government can come up with a prevailing reason why providing such a right would cause harm. Got something?

"Marriage" has ALWAYS meant between a man and multiple women.

The original banning of this Fundamental Right was nothing but anti-Mormon bigotry.

It is not on polygamist to prove that they are not bad, it is on the government and the bigots, like Seawytch, to prove that their bigotry is based on anything but fear and ignorance.

Polygamy has already gone to the SCOTUS. You're welcome to take it back to them and, once again, I'll wish you the best of luck. I was a huge fan of Big Love.

First Nations, blah, blah blah,

What gives you the right to force your religion down the throats of other citizens? What about the Separation of Church and State blah, blah, blah?

Is this starting to sound familiar?

Church and state are separate.

Then please explain your support of this Religion based law.

 

[Seawytch]

He never said he would "fight against gay marriage." You are mistaken.

Why don't you link to this legislation and how he voted on it?

Actually you're right, I did misread that one quote.

Here is more on his past opposition to gay marriage.

"Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996,[39] was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998,[40] and supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[39]Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believed that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[41] He supported civil unions that would establish legal standing equal to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions about the definition of marriage should be left to the states"


So, as late as 2008 he was a bigot, by your standards.

And I did not claim any specific legislation. I merely pointed out that he was against gay marriage while in the legislature, and that if he did vote against any gay friendly initiatives during that time, that the media would not tell you about it.

No, the bigot actively tries to take away gays and lesbians civil rights. Presdient Obama never did that. In fact, he's done everything he can to further them.

Yeah, that's MY kind of "bigot".

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Sorry Chickenfish, without a change to our system of government, you'll have to contend with the one the founders set up...where you get to redress grievances through the court.

And you'll have to accept their ruling. You don't have to like it, just deal.

 

[Seawytch]

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

All of our rights have limitations. Not a one is unlimited or unrestricted. In order to limit a fundamental right, you must be able to show where allowing it would cause societal harm. If you don't believe that whatever you're advocating for causes societal harm, challenge the restriction in court.

how does multiple marriage cause any more societal harm than gay marriage. Both are perversions.

Well there you go...you have the start of your challenge. Good luck!

the ACLU already has the challenge in work. It will happen and if they have gay marriage as a legal precedent they will win.

Then you've got nothing to worry about do you?

 

[Seawytch]

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

All of our rights have limitations. Not a one is unlimited or unrestricted. In order to limit a fundamental right, you must be able to show where allowing it would cause societal harm. If you don't believe that whatever you're advocating for causes societal harm, challenge the restriction in court.

How about we start with you admitting that you lied about the meaning of the word marriage in that you kept claiming it always meant two people?

How about I never made that claim. I said prior to 1965, marriage was for people of the same race and that court challenges changed that...just like they are now for people of the same gender.

After all, it's not like you gays didn't mount an effective public "debate" campaign before you started winning court cases.

Why did you lie about that? Is it because of your religion? It is isn't it?

You were probably raised Christian, and even if you rebelled in other ways, you still want to base laws on your mainstream Christian beliefs against polygamy.

Also were do you get off dismissing the FIrst Nation traditions and laws that were the law of the land far before Evul White people took their land?

Do you think being more vicious and bloodthirsty makes your laws better?

Again, I never lied and no I've never been a Christian. I was raised sans religious indoctrination of any kind.

 

[Seawytch]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

No...we say it's a fundamental right unless the government can come up with a prevailing reason why providing such a right would cause harm. Got something?

"Marriage" has ALWAYS meant between a man and multiple women.

The original banning of this Fundamental Right was nothing but anti-Mormon bigotry.

It is not on polygamist to prove that they are not bad, it is on the government and the bigots, like Seawytch, to prove that their bigotry is based on anything but fear and ignorance.

Polygamy has already gone to the SCOTUS. You're welcome to take it back to them and, once again, I'll wish you the best of luck. I was a huge fan of Big Love.

First Nations, blah, blah blah,

What gives you the right to force your religion down the throats of other citizens? What about the Separation of Church and State blah, blah, blah?

Is this starting to sound familiar?

Church and state are separate.

Then please explain your support of this Religion based law.

I don't support religious freedom to discriminate bills...unless they require the business to advertise their prejudice.

 

[emilynghiem]

and yet those kids aren't trying to take away the right of heterosexual parents to marry.

Seawytch you and everyone ALREADY has the right to marry whoever you want in whatever way you want under the RELIGION, CHURCH or PRIVATE practice/beliefs of your own.
That's already under the First Amendment religious freedom.

What is contested is how to word the STATE marriage laws to be neutral, and neither
excluding nor imposing anyone's beliefs unequally.

if you use the word MARRIAGE in a way that is offensive or against Christian beliefs,
that is like using the word GOD in a public institution that is offensive or against an Atheist.

Atheists sue to remove the word GOD, so to be fair, either side can sue to remove the word MARRIAGE
under terms that exclude or discriminate against people of other beliefs.

The problem, Seawytch is when either side GOES TOO FAR and tries to force THEIR beliefs
through the State at the expense or exclusion of the other.

if you believe in "separation of church and state" and "freedom of or from religion"
then NEITHER side should be pushing their beliefs into state laws and institutions.

Either keep the laws neutral and inclusive and equally open to all beliefs
or keep that institution OUT of state law if it can't be worded and agreed upon by people of all beliefs.

Be fair or get it out of govt, just like any other personal choice.

Seawytch if you don't want to include all public beliefs in public policy,
if you want to keep a free choice of BELIEFS protected, then keep it under free exercise of religion
which is already protected.

if you push too far and push YOUR beliefs about same-sex marriage into the public sector and public policy,
that's why people of OTHER beliefs will fight to do the same thing to protect THEIR beliefs.

well said. the intolerance of the left is well established. If you don't believe as they say you must, then you are to be destroyed.

If you don't believe, you must follow the law regardless, or face the consequences. It's not complicated.

Yes PaintMyHouse
1. And slavery treated slaves as property, where you could not take them away to be freed elsewhere,
or it was enforceable by law as theft of property.

2. And with prolife and prochoice issues, the law does not allow abortion to be banned based on religious beliefs and faith-based arguments NOR can people be forced to fund or support it against their beliefs. And the same is argued for gay marriage, that this is a personal belief that not all people share or choose to support. Because beliefs are involved, on both sides, marriage must remain a free choice and not mandated by the state against the beliefs of any of the public.

3. If the Left wants to keep contradicting the concept of "separation of church and state" by continuing to push political beliefs through law that violate and exclude the beliefs of others (whether pushing the right to health care but discriminating against the right to life or pushing beliefs in gay marriage over traditional marriage),
this may finally expose the "prochoice" movement as not being about choice but pushing political agenda.

Just because beliefs are secular doesn't make them any more privileged as a belief over those of others.

What gave prochoice the advantage in legal arguments over prolife is that prochoice was less restrictive and allowed prolife to be exercised WITHOUT having to fund anything prochoice.

With the ACA mandates (and these gay marriage laws that have already begun affecting wedding businesses and services) this is abusing govt to force people to change their beliefs, endorse and fund things against their beliefs, and even PUNISH business people for their beliefs against gay marriage and PENALIZE citizens for not complying with govt regulations on health care that not all people believe in as lawful.

With abortion, people had a choice not to provide them.

So if this continues, this could lead to destroying prochoice and "separation of church and state" arguments of the Left by proving the party members, leaders and policies contradict themselves, and are "discriminating by creed."

If the Left will not listen and correct their own arguments and policies,
maybe the parties should be sued for fraud, misrepresentation and breaches of contract.