CDZ Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

[320 Years of History]

I meant Iran not Iraq.
Eight of Iran's women's football team 'are men'

They are transgender women. They are not men and they are not "transvestites" Have you figured out what the difference is between transgender and transvestite?

And what does this have to do with the issue of marriage and benefits which is the topic of this thread? Care to comment on the OP?

Shoe in door. inching their way in with their gay agenda until their everywhere ruining everything. Marriage was just the beginning.

Oh please spare me the paranoid hype. What are they ruining?. What dark and dire fears are you harboring ? What exactly is the "gay agenda" ? It is equality and acceptance and if you can't deal with that, it's your problem and no one else's .Most of the country has moved on.

We have had same sex marriage in some states for ten or more years now. What has been ruined ?

Off Topic:
As if the "gay agenda" were insufficient to show you that rationalism won't reign on the other side of the conversation with the other member, that "pearl" having been following with what's below should remind you of the of the first part of the Serenity Prayer and heed it good advice.

God, give me grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.
​

Pedophiles in our girls bathrooms to prove we tolerate gays.
Total disassembly of women's sports by allowing men to compete directly with them.
and more.

Sounds like you have a tenuous grasp on reality Bubba


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

????

 

[Picaro]

Listen Troll, maybe you have something intelligent to say in relation to the Op? If not, maybe you would like to just crawl back under the rock where you live.

Aw, a troll is whining and calling somebody else a troll ...

you've yet to say anything 'intelligent' in these thread, just the usual astro-turfing and false premises, as in 'gay marriage' is some sort of legitimate issue to be taken seriously. It isn't, it's a farce and not a real issue, and homosexuals are just fetishists who provide nothing that needs to be sanctioned and given legal status in law, much less a status that allows them to adopt children or propagandize school children into believing homosexuality is 'normal' and okay. It's a mental illness, a public health menace, and a 'movement' that warmly endorsed pedophilia and had a pedophile ring openly sitting on its policy boards, until a Congressman raised a stink about that, whereupon the more media savvy sociopaths pointed out it kept them from a load of freebies from the UN and NGO status, and held a vote on whether or not to disenfranchise the ring; some 10% of the ILGA still voted to keep them, not to mention it's the only 'movement' I know of that actually felt compelled to be 'fair' to the vermin and vote on it in the first place, such is the degeneracy and sickness the entire 'Gay Rights' hoax is built on.

And, you look like a Chester yourself. You must be very proud.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Listen Troll, maybe you have something intelligent to say in relation to the Op? If not, maybe you would like to just crawl back under the rock where you live.

Aw, a troll is whining and calling somebody else a troll ...

you've yet to say anything 'intelligent' in these thread, just the usual astro-turfing and false premises, as in 'gay marriage' is some sort of legitimate issue to be taken seriously. It isn't, it's a farce and not a real issue, and homosexuals are just fetishists who provide nothing that needs to be sanctioned and given legal status in law, much less a status that allows them to adopt children or propagandize school children into believing homosexuality is 'normal' and okay. It's a mental illness, a public health menace, and a 'movement' that warmly endorsed pedophilia and had a pedophile ring openly sitting on its policy boards, until a Congressman raised a stink about that, whereupon the more media savvy sociopaths pointed out it kept them from a load of freebies from the UN and NGO status, and held a vote on whether or not to disenfranchise the ring; some 10% of the ILGA still voted to keep them, not to mention it's the only 'movement' I know of that actually felt compelled to be 'fair' to the vermin and vote on it in the first place, such is the degeneracy and sickness the entire 'Gay Rights' hoax is built on.

And, you look like a Chester yourself. You must be very proud.

That is quite a bizarre and insane rant bubba!! The fact is that gay and lesbian folks have been adopting and having children for a long time. And they are fine parents:

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They are transgender women. They are not men and they are not "transvestites" Have you figured out what the difference is between transgender and transvestite?

And what does this have to do with the issue of marriage and benefits which is the topic of this thread? Care to comment on the OP?

Shoe in door. inching their way in with their gay agenda until their everywhere ruining everything. Marriage was just the beginning.

Oh please spare me the paranoid hype. What are they ruining?. What dark and dire fears are you harboring ? What exactly is the "gay agenda" ? It is equality and acceptance and if you can't deal with that, it's your problem and no one else's .Most of the country has moved on.

We have had same sex marriage in some states for ten or more years now. What has been ruined ?

Pedophiles in our girls bathrooms to prove we tolerate gays.
Total disassembly of women's sports by allowing men to compete directly with them.
and more.

Pedophiles ? More of your horseshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Little girl says man watched her using bathroom say police

Target's controversial bathroom policy
Is Target’s bathroom policy an open door to sex offenders?


SURPRISE. Convicted Sex Offender Was Behind Charlotte, NC's Boys-In-the-Girls Bathroom Law | RedState

Transwomen & Sexualized Violence

88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)

Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3).

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia, in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

Transgender sex disorders are the leading indicator of criminal sexual behavior.

Yes.
You should know better by now than to challenge me.

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing useful to contribute to the actual topic. All that you can do is to dredge up nonsensical and hateful propaganda smearing trans people. Pretty pathetic!

 

[oldsoul]

I must admit, I did not read one word of the OP. I have just one question that points to my stance on the whole issue of Marriage; Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

Why is Government in the business of marriage in the first place? It is, originally, a religious institution after all. Libs love to cite "separation of church and state", except when it serves their agenda.

No it was not originally a religious institution:

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.13 Facts on the History of Marriage

While religion wormed it's way into marriage, today, in most places including the US , it is a legal/ civil matter subject to equal protection under the law as established by the Obergefell decision. "Libs" always support separation of church and state.

It seems to me that marriage was mentioned much earlier that what you have cited, and in the bible, among other RELIGIOUS texts.
Argument has failed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I must admit, I did not read one word of the OP. I have just one question that points to my stance on the whole issue of Marriage; Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

Why is Government in the business of marriage in the first place? It is, originally, a religious institution after all. Libs love to cite "separation of church and state", except when it serves their agenda.

No it was not originally a religious institution:

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.13 Facts on the History of Marriage

While religion wormed it's way into marriage, today, in most places including the US , it is a legal/ civil matter subject to equal protection under the law as established by the Obergefell decision. "Libs" always support separation of church and state.

It seems to me that marriage was mentioned much earlier that what you have cited, and in the bible, among other RELIGIOUS texts.
Argument has failed.

Failed?? Maybe it was mentioned in the bible. I wouldn't know. That does not change the fact that in may cultures throughout large swathes of history, it was not religious at all, as I have presented.

It also does not change the fact that at this time, in this country as in most, it is primarily a legal/ secular/ civil matter with religion only playing a role for those who want it to.

Lastly, it does not change the reasons I have documented that would make it impossible to get government out of it.

So what would you do? Give the religious institution complete control of marriage? That would be absurd in a secular society, and discriminate against the non religious who want to marry.

 

[oldsoul]

I must admit, I did not read one word of the OP. I have just one question that points to my stance on the whole issue of Marriage; Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

Why is Government in the business of marriage in the first place? It is, originally, a religious institution after all. Libs love to cite "separation of church and state", except when it serves their agenda.

No it was not originally a religious institution:

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.13 Facts on the History of Marriage

While religion wormed it's way into marriage, today, in most places including the US , it is a legal/ civil matter subject to equal protection under the law as established by the Obergefell decision. "Libs" always support separation of church and state.

It seems to me that marriage was mentioned much earlier that what you have cited, and in the bible, among other RELIGIOUS texts.
Argument has failed.

Failed?? Maybe it was mentioned in the bible. I wouldn't know. That does not change the fact that in may cultures throughout large swathes of history, it was not religious at all, as I have presented.

It also does not change the fact that at this time, in this country as in most, it is primarily a legal/ secular/ civil matter with religion only playing a role for those who want it to.

Lastly, it does not change the reasons I have documented that would make it impossible to get government out of it.

So what would you do? Give the religious institution complete control of marriage? That would be absurd in a secular society, and discriminate against the non religious who want to marry.

It also does not change the fact that at this time, in this country as in most, it is primarily a legal/ secular/ civil matter with religion only playing a role for those who want it to.

That is true, however, that was not what I was talking about. To refresh, I was referring to the origins of marriage.

So what would you do? Give the religious institution complete control of marriage? That would be absurd in a secular society, and discriminate against the non religious who want to marry.

You overlook a very simple alternative. For legal purposes, call civil unions just that, "Civil Unions". Whether they be unions of one man and one woman, two men, two women, or multiples of each, call them all the same. Again, for legal purposes. This eliminates government from marriage, which many people have deeply held religious beliefs about, and puts it back where it belongs (a "contract" between the parties directly involved, and any others they wish to include). Why is this so unacceptable?

 

[rdean]

Republicans want gays dead. How many times do they have to say it before we believe it?

 

[oldsoul]

Republicans want gays dead. How many times do they have to say it before we believe it?

Why do you insist on spreading unfounded lies?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I must admit, I did not read one word of the OP. I have just one question that points to my stance on the whole issue of Marriage; Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

Why is Government in the business of marriage in the first place? It is, originally, a religious institution after all. Libs love to cite "separation of church and state", except when it serves their agenda.

No it was not originally a religious institution:

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.13 Facts on the History of Marriage

While religion wormed it's way into marriage, today, in most places including the US , it is a legal/ civil matter subject to equal protection under the law as established by the Obergefell decision. "Libs" always support separation of church and state.

It seems to me that marriage was mentioned much earlier that what you have cited, and in the bible, among other RELIGIOUS texts.
Argument has failed.

Failed?? Maybe it was mentioned in the bible. I wouldn't know. That does not change the fact that in may cultures throughout large swathes of history, it was not religious at all, as I have presented.

It also does not change the fact that at this time, in this country as in most, it is primarily a legal/ secular/ civil matter with religion only playing a role for those who want it to.

Lastly, it does not change the reasons I have documented that would make it impossible to get government out of it.

So what would you do? Give the religious institution complete control of marriage? That would be absurd in a secular society, and discriminate against the non religious who want to marry.

It also does not change the fact that at this time, in this country as in most, it is primarily a legal/ secular/ civil matter with religion only playing a role for those who want it to.

That is true, however, that was not what I was talking about. To refresh, I was referring to the origins of marriage.

So what would you do? Give the religious institution complete control of marriage? That would be absurd in a secular society, and discriminate against the non religious who want to marry.

You overlook a very simple alternative. For legal purposes, call civil unions just that, "Civil Unions". Whether they be unions of one man and one woman, two men, two women, or multiples of each, call them all the same. Again, for legal purposes. This eliminates government from marriage, which many people have deeply held religious beliefs about, and puts it back where it belongs (a "contract" between the parties directly involved, and any others they wish to include). Why is this so unacceptable?

Actually I have not overlooked anything having been involved in this issue since way before Obergefell. On the other hand, it appears that you have not thought much about it at all. You ask why is it unacceptable and I will be happy to tell you.

· It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

· Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.

· I am a married, heterosexual person and I -along with many others would not be happy if I could not call it marriage. In addition, the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” If states tried to take marriage away, they would be violating constitutional law and setting up decades more of costly litigation. More not less government involvement.

· If we are not talking about doing away with marriage all together and the idea is to preserve marriage for those who want to be joined religiously, there are additional problems that should be obvious. We may have eliminated discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation but set up a situation where there is religious discrimination were secular people are howling about not being able to call their union marriage. More years of litigation and more government involvement.

· In addition, many religious institutions do in fact marry same sex couples and it’s naive to think that the religious right would be willing to allow those gay couples to call it marriage, even if there was no government recognition of it. More haggling, more political angst, more litigation and yes more government involvement

· Aside from the constitutional questions, there is the reality that it would take many years for all states to get on the same page with this. There would be a confusing patchwork of differing laws on civil unions while some states would retain marriage. That in would create questions about the legal status of couples who move from to another state-and especially between states that recognize marriage and those who do not. In short we would be right back to where we were before Obergefell with conflicts about reciprocal recognition of marriages from state to state. More litigation and more government involvement.

· Speaking of government involvement, civil unions as we knew them before Obergefell did indeed involve government. They were applied for and issued through local government. So that does not remove government from marriage

· If on the other hand, we are talking about private contracts between individuals, that would entail hiring a lawyer, something that may not be affordable for all. More importantly, contracts are provided for in law so you still have government involvement, as you would if it came to a contentious desolation requiring litigation.

· A contract between two individuals only governs the terms of their relationship and does not compel any third party entity, government of non-government, to recognize it or to extend any rights or benefits to those parties. Under current law, only marriage accomplishes that. One might say that the law could be changed, but I say good luck with that. Some states would surely resist, it would take decades, and more litigation. Yes, more government involvement.

· Sure a constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover all of this a get everyone on the same page but again, I say good luck.

· I might also point out that the federal government never recognized civil unions for the purpose of federal marriage benefits prior to the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage act. It would take an act of Congress to change that. Lets be realistic about the possibility of that happening any time soon

· If, by “government out of marriage we simply mean that no licenses would be issued and the government had no say in who can marry, there would be no way to control inappropriate marriage due to things like age of consent, competency and close relative issues. And if in fact that is the only change, government would still be deeply involved in marriage

· There are many on the religious right who object to any recognition of same sex unions no matter what they are called, so, while we still have government involved in marriage, we have not really solved anything.

· I had great fun responding to this -I wrote it in my head while working out at the gym and then came home and banged it out- and I hope you will enjoy trying to come up with a response. In closing, I will say that the system of marriage that we have is working just fine save for the human short comings and frailties the we bring to it. Marriage does not have to be fixed. Bigots and the religious right wing nut jobs have to be fixed.

 

[Slyhunter]

Shoe in door. inching their way in with their gay agenda until their everywhere ruining everything. Marriage was just the beginning.

Oh please spare me the paranoid hype. What are they ruining?. What dark and dire fears are you harboring ? What exactly is the "gay agenda" ? It is equality and acceptance and if you can't deal with that, it's your problem and no one else's .Most of the country has moved on.

We have had same sex marriage in some states for ten or more years now. What has been ruined ?

Pedophiles in our girls bathrooms to prove we tolerate gays.
Total disassembly of women's sports by allowing men to compete directly with them.
and more.

Pedophiles ? More of your horseshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Little girl says man watched her using bathroom say police

Target's controversial bathroom policy
Is Target’s bathroom policy an open door to sex offenders?


SURPRISE. Convicted Sex Offender Was Behind Charlotte, NC's Boys-In-the-Girls Bathroom Law | RedState

Transwomen & Sexualized Violence

88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)

Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3).

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia, in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

Transgender sex disorders are the leading indicator of criminal sexual behavior.

Yes.
You should know better by now than to challenge me.

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing useful to contribute to the actual topic. All that you can do is to dredge up nonsensical and hateful propaganda smearing trans people. Pretty pathetic!

What I did was prove you were the one full of Horseshit.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh please spare me the paranoid hype. What are they ruining?. What dark and dire fears are you harboring ? What exactly is the "gay agenda" ? It is equality and acceptance and if you can't deal with that, it's your problem and no one else's .Most of the country has moved on.

We have had same sex marriage in some states for ten or more years now. What has been ruined ?

Pedophiles in our girls bathrooms to prove we tolerate gays.
Total disassembly of women's sports by allowing men to compete directly with them.
and more.

Pedophiles ? More of your horseshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Little girl says man watched her using bathroom say police

Target's controversial bathroom policy
Is Target’s bathroom policy an open door to sex offenders?


SURPRISE. Convicted Sex Offender Was Behind Charlotte, NC's Boys-In-the-Girls Bathroom Law | RedState

Transwomen & Sexualized Violence

88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)

Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3).

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia, in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

Transgender sex disorders are the leading indicator of criminal sexual behavior.

Yes.
You should know better by now than to challenge me.

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing useful to contribute to the actual topic. All that you can do is to dredge up nonsensical and hateful propaganda smearing trans people. Pretty pathetic!

What I did was prove you were the one full of Horseshit.

I'm not bothering with you. You have nothing useful or remotely intelligent to say. All that you can do is spew bigoted propaganda and inane equine excrement. You are a blight on this forum where most people come to exchange ideas and to learn from one another. Buzzzzzz off!

 

[jillian]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

your religion doesn't permit you to make people second class citizens.

this issue has now been disposed of. i'm not sure why religious zealots are so intent on wanting to codify their hatred

 

[Divine Wind]

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

Yes; eliminate all 1138 laws, rights and benefits given to married couples.

 

[Divine Wind]

If they don't regulate marriage they can't make homo marriage legal and force states to abide by it.

Correct, but the states also can't regulate marriage since that is still a 14th Amendment issue.

States are free to make their own laws, but those laws must abide by the Constitution. Example, Mississippi can't have a law legalizing slavery because it violates the 13th Amendment.

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[oldsoul]

Bigots and the religious right wing nut jobs have to be fixed.

And now I understand your bias on the issue. Thanks.

 

[oldsoul]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Bigots and the religious right wing nut jobs have to be fixed.

And now I understand your bias on the issue. Thanks.

Yes of course I'm biased. Who isn't? But that does not negate the irrefutable, objective truth and logic that I present. If you thought that it was refutable, I would guess that you would have taken a stab at it.

Instead, after I take the time and trouble to write a comprehensive dissertation on the topic in an attempt to educate you, all that you can do is reply to one line with a comment that you think will shoot me down and discredit me. I hope that you have learned that you can't just present a poorly conceived, half baked idea, claim that it is "simple" when it's anything but simple, and expect not to be called out on it. Very sad indeed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

No! Are you serious??!! Those who are not married are free to get married . No one is discriminating against them. What rights that married people have that could be extended to single people.? The right to file a joint income tax return-with themselves? The right to inherit their own estate tax free---after they are dead? THINK! It would appear that your biases are showing. The difference is that I don't allow my biases to cloud my ability to employ reason and logic to an issue.

 

[Divine Wind]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

Yes, which is a problem. OTOH, if everyone is allowed to marry a consenting adult, then it makes the problem more easily digested.

Some of those rights and benefits apply unmarried couples with children too.