Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?

[Ame®icano]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

Don't know if I answered this before TheProgressivePatriot
I would offer these points about marriage being a right:
1. Marriage is a right like Baptism is a right or funerals or communion.
You have the right to exercise your beliefs in any ritualistic form you choose.
So this is a right included under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION where Govt
can neither establish NOR PROHIBIT free exercise of religion (or expression
by freedom of speech also in the First Amendment).

2. To legislate what is a legal right either requires
a. State legislatures whose duty is to WRITE OR REFORM laws
(this is NOT judicial capacity to create laws, only to INTERPRET)
b. Constitutional Amendments ratified by States as with
establishing VOTING RIGHTS which has a written Amendment
(again this is NOT judicial duty to create laws or rights)

3. What the courts DO have authority to do is STRIKE DOWN
bans or laws that discriminate in unconstitutional ways.

Striking DOWN a ban on gay marriage or on abortion etc.
is NOT THE SAME as "creating a law making it legal."

For example, if courts were to STRIKE DOWN a law BANNING Christianity
that's NOT the same as "making Christianity legal." It was already legal
to practice under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. the State is NOT endorsing
Christianity NOR is it "requiring states to implement Christianity"
by removing a ban against it.

So striking down a ban on gay marriage is not requiring States to implement it either.
It's just saying that once States HAVE marriages within state law
then it can't be discriminatory. And this is why I agree with Libertarians
and other Constitutionalists who argue that if people cannot agree on marriage
laws or beliefs, then NONE OF THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN GOVT LAWS:
* if PEOPLE of a state AGREE on "marriage laws" then when those people
authorize the STATE to legislate it, it's not violating the beliefs of any citizens.
* if PEOPLE of a state DISAGREE on marriage laws and beliefs, then legislating
one belief or bias over another would discriminate against people opposed,
such as the case with marriage laws banning same sex marriages which violated
the beliefs of people who were unequally excluded, so in those cases I would
recommend either NEUTRAL or NO laws on marriage, but stick to civil unions
and decide benefits based on financial contracts that people agree to,
instead of regulating social relationships. And if people can't agree on terms of
benefits, then separate THAT from govt as well and manage it privately, just as
church groups decide on programs for their own members, not for the entire public!

You're comparing marriage and religion.

Can you point where in Constitution is mentioned marriage, as is religion?

 

[Ame®icano]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

According to the Article 1. Section 1. of the Constitution, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.". Courts cannot make the law out of thin air, that's Congress job.

 

[Ame®icano]

How this is fair to girls? And leftists are calling this "brave and stunning".

#Woke

View attachment 247611

how about an "open competition" where gender is not a concern? we could have men, women, and transgender categories.

Men and women competition already exist. I have no problem having transgender only category, where they can compete against each other. Keep men and women competitions for men and women.

 

[emilynghiem]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

Don't know if I answered this before TheProgressivePatriot
I would offer these points about marriage being a right:
1. Marriage is a right like Baptism is a right or funerals or communion.
You have the right to exercise your beliefs in any ritualistic form you choose.
So this is a right included under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION where Govt
can neither establish NOR PROHIBIT free exercise of religion (or expression
by freedom of speech also in the First Amendment).

2. To legislate what is a legal right either requires
a. State legislatures whose duty is to WRITE OR REFORM laws
(this is NOT judicial capacity to create laws, only to INTERPRET)
b. Constitutional Amendments ratified by States as with
establishing VOTING RIGHTS which has a written Amendment
(again this is NOT judicial duty to create laws or rights)

3. What the courts DO have authority to do is STRIKE DOWN
bans or laws that discriminate in unconstitutional ways.

Striking DOWN a ban on gay marriage or on abortion etc.
is NOT THE SAME as "creating a law making it legal."

For example, if courts were to STRIKE DOWN a law BANNING Christianity
that's NOT the same as "making Christianity legal." It was already legal
to practice under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. the State is NOT endorsing
Christianity NOR is it "requiring states to implement Christianity"
by removing a ban against it.

So striking down a ban on gay marriage is not requiring States to implement it either.
It's just saying that once States HAVE marriages within state law
then it can't be discriminatory. And this is why I agree with Libertarians
and other Constitutionalists who argue that if people cannot agree on marriage
laws or beliefs, then NONE OF THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN GOVT LAWS:
* if PEOPLE of a state AGREE on "marriage laws" then when those people
authorize the STATE to legislate it, it's not violating the beliefs of any citizens.
* if PEOPLE of a state DISAGREE on marriage laws and beliefs, then legislating
one belief or bias over another would discriminate against people opposed,
such as the case with marriage laws banning same sex marriages which violated
the beliefs of people who were unequally excluded, so in those cases I would
recommend either NEUTRAL or NO laws on marriage, but stick to civil unions
and decide benefits based on financial contracts that people agree to,
instead of regulating social relationships. And if people can't agree on terms of
benefits, then separate THAT from govt as well and manage it privately, just as
church groups decide on programs for their own members, not for the entire public!

You're comparing marriage and religion.

Can you point where in Constitution is mentioned marriage, as is religion?

Ame®icano
I'm saying Marriage like Baptism or other religious rites
is INCLUDED under "free exercise of religion."

I'm saying it isn't a separate right like Gun Rights or Voting Rights
that are established by Constitutional process of passing Amendments ratified by States,
not created by judicial rulings or passed by Congress without Amending the Constitution.

 

[Lysistrata]

Everyone has a "civil union" who is married under civil law, which is subject to the Constitution. No one is interfering with anyone's right to undergo a religious ritual according to their religious organization, which binds them to the rules of that organization.

 

[toobfreak]

Why don’t you you just leave them alone?

Because they don't leave US alone?

Ask yourself what any normal person would do going into a bakery and the baker declined putting a given saying on your cake? We'd go down the street to someone else.

Instead, what did the LGBTQ do? They contacted the federal government, sued the baker, and put them out of business for trying to simply live THEIR lives by their own standards.

 

[Paulie]

Why don’t you you just leave them alone?

Because they don't leave US alone?

Ask yourself what any normal person would do going into a bakery and the baker declined putting a given saying on your cake? We'd go down the street to someone else.

Instead, what did the LGBTQ do? They contacted the federal government, sued the baker, and put them out of business for trying to simply live THEIR lives by their own standards.

It's punishment for not thinking the way they do. Thats how the left works now. Join us or die.

 

[anynameyouwish]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

is conservative hatred and desire for violence a mental disorder or a choice?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

According to the Article 1. Section 1. of the Constitution, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.". Courts cannot make the law out of thin air, that's Congress job.

The courts are not making law "out of thin air" The courts rule on the proper application of laws based on legislative intent, and , as in the case of marriage , whether or not the law passes constitutional muster. The problem is that both conservatives and liberals whine, bleat and blather about " legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism" whenever they don't like a ruling. However, judicial review and oversite is an accepted and well established role of the court- at least since Marbury v. Madison. If not, then what is the purpose of the court?

 

[Lysistrata]

Why don’t you you just leave them alone?

Because they don't leave US alone?

Ask yourself what any normal person would do going into a bakery and the baker declined putting a given saying on your cake? We'd go down the street to someone else.

Instead, what did the LGBTQ do? They contacted the federal government, sued the baker, and put them out of business for trying to simply live THEIR lives by their own standards.

Who is the "they" who can't leave the "us" alone? Who is the "us"?

The "normal" people who are subjected to violations of public-accommodations laws go to the state agency set up to deal with such violations and make a complaint. The agency decides whether there has been a violation. It found a violation and fined the perp. The perp then took the agency to court.

The couple only filed a legitimate complaint with the agency. They did not go to the federal government. They did absolutely nothing to put the perp out of business.

You have no comprehension of how these things work.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

According to the Article 1. Section 1. of the Constitution, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.". Courts cannot make the law out of thin air, that's Congress job.

The court does not write laws. Granted, they issue binding precedents that determine what the law means and whether or not it is constitutional. Those rulings do indeed alter the legal landscape and effect countless lives. But every court case-every ruling starts with a law that was passed by a legislative body, AND that was then challenged by someone effected by that law. Without the oversite role of the courts ,the people would have no recourse except for the lengthy and uncertain process of getting rid of the elected officials who voted for the law.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We drug kids for being hyper(being normal).
We have drugs for depression.
We have drugs for OCD.
We have drugs for stress.
We have drugs for schizophrenia.
We have drugs for bipplar.

The list goes on and on. But we dont treat people who think they are something they clearly are not or people who think unnatural behavior is okay?

is conservative hatred and desire for violence a mental disorder or a choice?

Retarded. If you have an adult question let me know

 

[toobfreak]

Why don’t you you just leave them alone?

Because they don't leave US alone?

Ask yourself what any normal person would do going into a bakery and the baker declined putting a given saying on your cake? We'd go down the street to someone else.

Instead, what did the LGBTQ do? They contacted the federal government, sued the baker, and put them out of business for trying to simply live THEIR lives by their own standards.

Who is the "they" who can't leave the "us" alone? Who is the "us"? You have no comprehension of how these things work.

READ, Listerina, READS the thread. Then ask Coyote because I was just repeating HER words. WHERE WERE YOU when she asked us and them????? Off in a stupor somewhere failing to comprehend as usual?

 

[anynameyouwish]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

Don't know if I answered this before TheProgressivePatriot
I would offer these points about marriage being a right:
1. Marriage is a right like Baptism is a right or funerals or communion.
You have the right to exercise your beliefs in any ritualistic form you choose.
So this is a right included under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION where Govt
can neither establish NOR PROHIBIT free exercise of religion (or expression
by freedom of speech also in the First Amendment).

2. To legislate what is a legal right either requires
a. State legislatures whose duty is to WRITE OR REFORM laws
(this is NOT judicial capacity to create laws, only to INTERPRET)
b. Constitutional Amendments ratified by States as with
establishing VOTING RIGHTS which has a written Amendment
(again this is NOT judicial duty to create laws or rights)

3. What the courts DO have authority to do is STRIKE DOWN
bans or laws that discriminate in unconstitutional ways.

Striking DOWN a ban on gay marriage or on abortion etc.
is NOT THE SAME as "creating a law making it legal."

For example, if courts were to STRIKE DOWN a law BANNING Christianity
that's NOT the same as "making Christianity legal." It was already legal
to practice under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. the State is NOT endorsing
Christianity NOR is it "requiring states to implement Christianity"
by removing a ban against it.

So striking down a ban on gay marriage is not requiring States to implement it either.
It's just saying that once States HAVE marriages within state law
then it can't be discriminatory. And this is why I agree with Libertarians
and other Constitutionalists who argue that if people cannot agree on marriage
laws or beliefs, then NONE OF THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN GOVT LAWS:
* if PEOPLE of a state AGREE on "marriage laws" then when those people
authorize the STATE to legislate it, it's not violating the beliefs of any citizens.
* if PEOPLE of a state DISAGREE on marriage laws and beliefs, then legislating
one belief or bias over another would discriminate against people opposed,
such as the case with marriage laws banning same sex marriages which violated
the beliefs of people who were unequally excluded, so in those cases I would
recommend either NEUTRAL or NO laws on marriage, but stick to civil unions
and decide benefits based on financial contracts that people agree to,
instead of regulating social relationships. And if people can't agree on terms of
benefits, then separate THAT from govt as well and manage it privately, just as
church groups decide on programs for their own members, not for the entire public!

"rights"


according to EVERY CONSERVATIVE in the country our ONLY RIGHTS are THOSE ACTUALLY LISTED in the constitution.


period.


marriage is NOT mentioned in the constitution.

exclamation point.

 

[danielpalos]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[Lysistrata]

Why don’t you you just leave them alone?

Because they don't leave US alone?

Ask yourself what any normal person would do going into a bakery and the baker declined putting a given saying on your cake? We'd go down the street to someone else.

Instead, what did the LGBTQ do? They contacted the federal government, sued the baker, and put them out of business for trying to simply live THEIR lives by their own standards.

Who is the "they" who can't leave the "us" alone? Who is the "us"? You have no comprehension of how these things work.

READ, Listerina, READS the thread. Then ask Coyote because I was just repeating HER words. WHERE WERE YOU when she asked us and them????? Off in a stupor somewhere failing to comprehend as usual?

I'm not jumping at the bait. You know what I mean. You are a member of a group with some big chip on your shoulder and act like someone is "persecuting" you. Sniffle, sniffle.. I just pointed out that you got both the law and the facts wrong.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.

Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?

Don't know if I answered this before TheProgressivePatriot
I would offer these points about marriage being a right:
1. Marriage is a right like Baptism is a right or funerals or communion.
You have the right to exercise your beliefs in any ritualistic form you choose.
So this is a right included under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION where Govt
can neither establish NOR PROHIBIT free exercise of religion (or expression
by freedom of speech also in the First Amendment).

2. To legislate what is a legal right either requires
a. State legislatures whose duty is to WRITE OR REFORM laws
(this is NOT judicial capacity to create laws, only to INTERPRET)
b. Constitutional Amendments ratified by States as with
establishing VOTING RIGHTS which has a written Amendment
(again this is NOT judicial duty to create laws or rights)

3. What the courts DO have authority to do is STRIKE DOWN
bans or laws that discriminate in unconstitutional ways.

Striking DOWN a ban on gay marriage or on abortion etc.
is NOT THE SAME as "creating a law making it legal."

For example, if courts were to STRIKE DOWN a law BANNING Christianity
that's NOT the same as "making Christianity legal." It was already legal
to practice under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. the State is NOT endorsing
Christianity NOR is it "requiring states to implement Christianity"
by removing a ban against it.

So striking down a ban on gay marriage is not requiring States to implement it either.
It's just saying that once States HAVE marriages within state law
then it can't be discriminatory. And this is why I agree with Libertarians
and other Constitutionalists who argue that if people cannot agree on marriage
laws or beliefs, then NONE OF THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN GOVT LAWS:
* if PEOPLE of a state AGREE on "marriage laws" then when those people
authorize the STATE to legislate it, it's not violating the beliefs of any citizens.
* if PEOPLE of a state DISAGREE on marriage laws and beliefs, then legislating
one belief or bias over another would discriminate against people opposed,
such as the case with marriage laws banning same sex marriages which violated
the beliefs of people who were unequally excluded, so in those cases I would
recommend either NEUTRAL or NO laws on marriage, but stick to civil unions
and decide benefits based on financial contracts that people agree to,
instead of regulating social relationships. And if people can't agree on terms of
benefits, then separate THAT from govt as well and manage it privately, just as
church groups decide on programs for their own members, not for the entire public!

"rights"


according to EVERY CONSERVATIVE in the country our ONLY RIGHTS are THOSE ACTUALLY LISTED in the constitution.


period.


marriage is NOT mentioned in the constitution.

exclamation point.

Bubba. The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination. Let us know when jurisdictions start to arbitrarily refuse marriage licenses to opposite sex couples and then we can talk about rights

 

[toobfreak]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

Sorry again, PeePee but NO. Would you hire a person with a social degree for an engineering position? No! Is that discrimination? No, it is simply common sense. For THOUSANDS of years, "marriage" was defined as a legal union between man and wife in holy matrimony for the express purpose of trying to have a family and bring young ones into this world. Each parent lent an aspect to the guidance and upbringing of the children; the masculine influence as well as the feminine. One was nurturing/protective while the other taught how to go out and battle the world.

Only within the past few years has the term marriage been perverted and devalued to mean any two ******* idiots who want to live together just because they have an emotional bond. Gay people don't need marriage to have a legal civil bond, but whatever changes made to the semantics of the laws you can NEVER be truly "married," you will never have children of your own nor ever raise a family.

Your whole complaint seems based on the "unfairness" of this or that situation; life was never meant to be fair: I can't give birth, I'll never be an athlete. I can't dance, and a whole lot of other things. You are a square peg bitching that you can't fit into the round holes of the world. Sorry, but not all holes (ahem) were meant for you. That isn't discrimination, that is merely life.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

Sorry again, PeePee but NO. Would you hire a person with a social degree for an engineering position? No! Is that discrimination? No, it is simply common sense. For THOUSANDS of years, "marriage" was defined as a legal union between man and wife in holy matrimony for the express purpose of trying to have a family and bring young ones into this world. Each parent lent an aspect to the guidance and upbringing of the children; the masculine influence as well as the feminine. One was nurturing/protective while the other taught how to go out and battle the world.

Only within the past few years has the term marriage been perverted and devalued to mean any two ******* idiots who want to live together just because they have an emotional bond. Gay people don't need marriage to have a legal civil bond, but whatever changes made to the semantics of the laws you can NEVER be truly "married," you will never have children of your own nor ever raise a family.

Your whole complaint seems based on the "unfairness" of this or that situation; life was never meant to be fair: I can't give birth, I'll never be an athlete. I can't dance, and a whole lot of other things. You are a square peg bitching that you can't fit into the round holes of the world. Sorry, but not all holes (ahem) were meant for you. That isn't discrimination, that is merely life.

Nice rant based on nothing but logical fallacies such as an appeal to tradition and a false dichotomy not to mention an appeal to ignorance. One could drown the pile of horseshit. An there is absolutely no legal basis for your so call argument.

 

[toobfreak]

The point is that marriage has been treated as a right for people who want to marry the someone of the opposite sex who they choose. They only have to meet certain minimum requirements. Whereas, before Obergefell, gay people in many places could not marry the person of their choice. That is discrimination.

Sorry again, PeePee but NO. Would you hire a person with a social degree for an engineering position? No! Is that discrimination? No, it is simply common sense. For THOUSANDS of years, "marriage" was defined as a legal union between man and wife in holy matrimony for the express purpose of trying to have a family and bring young ones into this world. Each parent lent an aspect to the guidance and upbringing of the children; the masculine influence as well as the feminine. One was nurturing/protective while the other taught how to go out and battle the world.

Only within the past few years has the term marriage been perverted and devalued to mean any two ******* idiots who want to live together just because they have an emotional bond. Gay people don't need marriage to have a legal civil bond, but whatever changes made to the semantics of the laws you can NEVER be truly "married," you will never have children of your own nor ever raise a family.

Your whole complaint seems based on the "unfairness" of this or that situation; life was never meant to be fair: I can't give birth, I'll never be an athlete. I can't dance, and a whole lot of other things. You are a square peg bitching that you can't fit into the round holes of the world. Sorry, but not all holes (ahem) were meant for you. That isn't discrimination, that is merely life.

Nice rant based on nothing but logical fallacies such as an appeal to tradition and a false dichotomy not to mention an appeal to ignorance. One could drown the pile of horseshit. An there is absolutely no legal basis for your so call argument.

WHICH logical fallacies?
WHAT false dichotomy?
WHAT ignorance?

The notion of marriage as a sacrament, and not just a contract, can be traced to St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth-century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance didn't exist until medieval times and the troubadours.

Pope Nicholas I declared in 866, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void." This shows the importance of a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of both church teaching and marriage laws through the years.

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

Leviticus 18 universally outlaws men laying with men as with women, with this being a capital crime, (Lv. 18:22; 20:13), with an additional separate prohibition evidently forbidding homosexual religious prostitution. Homosexual behavior was especially manifest in Rome and Greece at that time, but which was and is a historical constant among all peoples, in differing but deleterious forms, and with different degrees of moral degeneration being realized. For the follower of the Bible therefore, homosexuality is not new, nor unexpected, but neither is it justified, rather it is unequivocally condemned, while God is revealed as giving man grace to resist and overcome sin. (Gn. 4:7; Ja. 1:12-15' 1Cor. 6:9-11)

History of homosexuality - Conservapedia