Are really sure you want gay marriage?

[Skylar]

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

You are not society. Bottom line is we all have a right to marry- and the courts have found repeatedly that Adam does have the right to marry Steve.

The courts are populated by political hacks put their to implement the leftwing agenda. Truth has nothing to do with with their decisions.

Or.....its not virtually the whole of the federal judiciary that's wrong.

Its just you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

Straight marriages get way, way, way, way more government cash and prizes than gay marriages ever will.

It is precisely because straights have been demanding these government prizes for so very long that we are even discussing the gay marriage issue.

Why was their no whining about your taxes increasing all this time that straights were getting these government gifts?

Now that gays want the exact same thing, the cost is suddenly a problem!

I oppose benefits for straight marriages as well. That doesn't mean I want to compound the problem by adding more groups who qualify. Of course, one of your ilk said it isn't "practicable" to eliminate the legal benefits for marriage.

Where was all this opposition to state sanctioned marriage BEFORE gays were seeking the same recognition as straights?

Libertarians have always been opposed to state sanctioned marriage

No, they did not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

Bottom line, that's your opinion. And while you're welcome to it, we're not basing any ruling on your personal opinion.

Worse, your reasoning is absurd. No one, repeat *no one* is required to have kids or be able to have kid to get married. Why then would we exclude gays based on their failure to meet a standard that applies to no one?

Obviously, we wouldn't.

I've dispatched this argument at least 100 times already. You aren't required to drive if you get a driver's license. However, we know driver's licenses exist to ensure safety on the roads. Your "logic" isn't worthy of a low-grade moron.

The "standard" is that you have the biological equipment necessary to reproduce. All your weaselling will never get around that irrefutable fact.

Your responses get weaker with each post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mr. Right and bripat are perfect for each other.

 

[Skylar]

I've dispatched this argument at least 100 times already. You aren't required to drive if you get a driver's license.

But you are required to be ABLE to drive to get a driver's license. And you don't need to be able to procreate to get married. Demonstrating that there is a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.

No one, in any state, is required to be able to have kids to get married. The standard you're holding gays to simply does not exist. For anyone.

So much for your 'logic'.

 

[ChrisL]

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

Straight marriages get way, way, way, way more government cash and prizes than gay marriages ever will.

It is precisely because straights have been demanding these government prizes for so very long that we are even discussing the gay marriage issue.

Why was their no whining about your taxes increasing all this time that straights were getting these government gifts?

Now that gays want the exact same thing, the cost is suddenly a problem!

I oppose benefits for straight marriages as well. That doesn't mean I want to compound the problem by adding more groups who qualify. Of course, one of your ilk said it isn't "practicable" to eliminate the legal benefits for marriage.

Where was all this opposition to state sanctioned marriage BEFORE gays were seeking the same recognition as straights?

Libertarians have always been opposed to state sanctioned marriage

YOU are no libertarian. That much is obvious.

 

[ChrisL]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Yes.

And I'm in favor of chemical castration of homophobes and bigots. They too often reproduce and brain wash their kids with filthy and ignorant beliefs.

We're not surprised that you want to chemically mutilate people who have committed no crime.

That is so beautifully liberal!

And you want to deny equality for people who have committed no crime. You still haven't answered my question. Why do you care who gets married and who does not?

 

[ChrisL]

Silly comment. We are talking about Constitutional law not Christian "truth."

Where did I use the word "Christian?" I'm an atheist, Fakey. Truth is truth, regardless of what some judge rules.

No, it isn't. Where did you come up with that nonsense? There is no truth that marriage equality is bad.

The phrase "marriage equality" is a misnomer. Marriage perversion would be the more accurate term.

Why do you care why other people choose to be married or what they do in their bedrooms? How does this effect you?

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

Getting a tax benefit or exemption does NOT mean you have to pay any more than what you already do.

 

[ChrisL]

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

Bottom line: Adam has no right to marry Steve. They both have dicks and therefore can't produce children. Such "marriages" are utterly pointless from the viewpoint of society.

Bottom line, that's your opinion. And while you're welcome to it, we're not basing any ruling on your personal opinion.

Worse, your reasoning is absurd. No one, repeat *no one* is required to have kids or be able to have kid to get married. Why then would we exclude gays based on their failure to meet a standard that applies to no one?

Obviously, we wouldn't.

I've dispatched this argument at least 100 times already. You aren't required to drive if you get a driver's license. However, we know driver's licenses exist to ensure safety on the roads. Your "logic" isn't worthy of a low-grade moron.

The "standard" is that you have the biological equipment necessary to reproduce. All your weaselling will never get around that irrefutable fact.

Your responses get weaker with each post.

He seems like a very hateful little man with a little brain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is an anarcho-commie, ChrisL. It means he hates everyone.

 

[Londoner]

The Right always says that if you allow gays to marry, than you don't have the logical grounds to deny siblings the right to marry. But this hysterical slippery slope garbage has always missed the point. There isn't a movement of brothers and sisters asking for marriage contracts. You have to build policy around those who are actually petitioning the State.

 

[hipeter924]

Yep. If there has to be marriage, it might as well be open to same and opposite sex couples.

 

[JoeB131]

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

Again, this is like burning down the clubhouse because a court said you had to let Jews join.

state sanctioned marriage is needed because it covers a lot of legal contingencies a contract really can't. and gays should have the same access to it, if they want it.

 

[Mr.Right]

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

Again, this is like burning down the clubhouse because a court said you had to let Jews join.

state sanctioned marriage is needed because it covers a lot of legal contingencies a contract really can't. and gays should have the same access to it, if they want it.

Homosexuality is abnormal and perverted. It's also unhealthy, and it has been proven that children of same sex couples do not developed as well as children in traditional marriages. No matter how much you try to normalize it, it will always be a unhealthy perverted lifestyle.

 

[konradv]

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

That's essentially what a civil marriage is. Without some form of government to establish courts, how would those contracts be enforced?

 

[ChrisL]

Well, as a libertarian, I believe in individual freedom for adults. That is why I am pro gay marriage and abortion, as well as the right to own and carry a firearm for self defense, hunting, or sporting purposes.

 

[JoeB131]

Homosexuality is abnormal and perverted. It's also unhealthy, and it has been proven that children of same sex couples do not developed as well as children in traditional marriages. No matter how much you try to normalize it, it will always be a unhealthy perverted lifestyle.

So you just made a lot of assertions and didn't back any of htem up.

So other than, "My Sky Pixie thinks its wrong" and "I think it's icky", do you have any rational arguments?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

Again, this is like burning down the clubhouse because a court said you had to let Jews join.

state sanctioned marriage is needed because it covers a lot of legal contingencies a contract really can't. and gays should have the same access to it, if they want it.

Homosexuality is abnormal and perverted. It's also unhealthy, and it has been proven that children of same sex couples do not developed as well as children in traditional marriages. No matter how much you try to normalize it, it will always be a unhealthy perverted lifestyle.

Many Christians disagree with Mr. Right, and you as a militant atheist, JoeB, are right there at the same level of Koshergrl for cred.

 

[JoeB131]

Many Christians disagree with Mr. Right, and you as a militant atheist, JoeB, are right there at the same level of Koshergrl for cred.

Jake, go troll somewhere else, the grownups are talking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many Christians disagree with Mr. Right, and you as a militant atheist, JoeB, are right there at the same level of Koshergrl for cred.

Jake, go troll somewhere else, the grownups are talking.

Hush, kosher uh I mean JoeB.

You have no cred with either side on this subject.