Finally....the end of "gay" marriage....

[SwimExpert]

so you support bigamists and polygamists getting "married" and having their marriages recognized as legal and equal to man/woman marriages?

the FACT is that if gays are allowed to "marry" then there is no legal defense that can be put forward to not allow polygamists and bigamists to marry.

I hate to use "slippery slope" but it does apply here.

That's actually fiction.

In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[RDD_1210]

right, this is all about FORCED SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE GAY LIFESTYLE AS NORMAL AND EQUAL TO HETEROSEXUAL HUMAN EXISTENCE.

Its not about equality, rights, families, tolerance, or legality--------this is all about finding a way for the government to mandate social acceptance of homosexuality as "normal"

But its not and never will be normal. homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, its a sickness just as being bi-polar is a sickness.

Are bi-polar people not allowed to marry other bi-polar people?

Otherwise, solid analogy.

Geez, you lefties are a thick headed bunch. Of course a bi-polar man can marry a bi-polar woman.

the analogy was that being bi-polar is a mental condition, just as being homosexual is a mental condition.

Ok, and? What does that have to do with not allowing homosexuals to marry each other?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not a thing.

There is no gay marriage, you know: only marriage, in which all consenting adults can participate.

 

[Redfish]

so you support bigamists and polygamists getting "married" and having their marriages recognized as legal and equal to man/woman marriages?

the FACT is that if gays are allowed to "marry" then there is no legal defense that can be put forward to not allow polygamists and bigamists to marry.

I hate to use "slippery slope" but it does apply here.

That's actually fiction.

In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Nope, its a fact. Its coming and SCOTUS will not be able to find any way to deny it if gay marriage becomes legal on a federal level.

 

[Redfish]

Are bi-polar people not allowed to marry other bi-polar people?

Otherwise, solid analogy.

Geez, you lefties are a thick headed bunch. Of course a bi-polar man can marry a bi-polar woman.

the analogy was that being bi-polar is a mental condition, just as being homosexual is a mental condition.

Ok, and? What does that have to do with not allowing homosexuals to marry each other?

Oh, geez, what does it take to get through to you? Two women or two men is NOT a marriage. Its a homosexual mutual commitment, which is fine and it should be given legal status-----------but its not a marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish, that is your opinion, but it does not matter in law.

 

[SwimExpert]

We want gay couples to have equal rights.

That's why you are hell bent on them not having them?

We want them to be able to make a legal committment to each other and to have ir recognized as legal and binding.

Yes, you've buckled down to that level. You'll accept some legally recognized arrangement, so that you can continue to reject gay marriage rights. Of course, if you really wanted them to have equal rights it would be much simpler to just support gay marriage.

Civil unions give you those rights

Marriage doesn't even give gay couples equal rights to straight couples. You know damn well that civil unions do not provide equal rights as marriage. Stop being a liar.

what you don't get is that you cannot legislate social acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority consider an aberation of the human condition.

Nobody said anything about legislating social acceptance. It's no different than you having the right to own a gun. People can hate you for it if they want, but you have the freedom to choose and so do they.

 

[SwimExpert]

so you support bigamists and polygamists getting "married" and having their marriages recognized as legal and equal to man/woman marriages?

the FACT is that if gays are allowed to "marry" then there is no legal defense that can be put forward to not allow polygamists and bigamists to marry.

I hate to use "slippery slope" but it does apply here.

That's actually fiction.

In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Nope, its a fact. Its coming and SCOTUS will not be able to find any way to deny it if gay marriage becomes legal on a federal level.

The Supreme Court has already rejected it. You'd know that if you bothered to read the link.

 

[bodecea]

she defeats her own arguments in every thread on this topic. Its really tiresome

Nope...but you are free to say so. Just don't expect people to believe you.

are you wytchey's partner?

No. Are you Kosh's partner?

 

[bodecea]

Geez, you lefties are a thick headed bunch. Of course a bi-polar man can marry a bi-polar woman.

the analogy was that being bi-polar is a mental condition, just as being homosexual is a mental condition.

Ok, and? What does that have to do with not allowing homosexuals to marry each other?

Oh, geez, what does it take to get through to you? Two women or two men is NOT a marriage. Its a homosexual mutual commitment, which is fine and it should be given legal status-----------but its not a marriage.

How odd. My wife and I are married in the eyes of our god, according to the state of CA and federally now. What you mean to say is "I don't like that two women or two men have a marriage so I will personally reject their marriage." That is fine for you.

 

[Katzndogz]

What the **** is this country coming to. A child needs 1 father and 1 mother living together and acting like a couple together to raise them...jesus christ...this country is dead someone just bury it already.

California as a groundbreaker, has already legally declared that more than two people can be legal parents and don't even have to live together.

 

[Redfish]

Ok, and? What does that have to do with not allowing homosexuals to marry each other?

Oh, geez, what does it take to get through to you? Two women or two men is NOT a marriage. Its a homosexual mutual commitment, which is fine and it should be given legal status-----------but its not a marriage.

How odd. My wife and I are married in the eyes of our god, according to the state of CA and federally now. What you mean to say is "I don't like that two women or two men have a marriage so I will personally reject their marriage." That is fine for you.

are you both "wives" ? Do you have any idea how sick that is? I can accept that you have no control over your urges, but its a mental abnormality. Sorry, but you cannot deny biology.

 

[RDD_1210]

Geez, you lefties are a thick headed bunch. Of course a bi-polar man can marry a bi-polar woman.

the analogy was that being bi-polar is a mental condition, just as being homosexual is a mental condition.

Ok, and? What does that have to do with not allowing homosexuals to marry each other?

Oh, geez, what does it take to get through to you? Two women or two men is NOT a marriage. Its a homosexual mutual commitment, which is fine and it should be given legal status-----------but its not a marriage.

Again....What does any of that have to do with your bi-polar example?

 

[candycorn]

What I have held all along...buggery has nothing to do with it.

Couple who are just friends allowed to adopt, judge says in landmark ruling* - NY Daily News

It's really pathetic that you're so obsessed with other people's lives and families. Stick to your own.

As soon as he gets one

 

[WorldWatcher]

nice little rant, but totally wrong. We want gay couples to have equal rights. We want them to be able to make a legal committment to each other and to have ir recognized as legal and binding.

Civil unions give you those rights-------------what you don't get is that you cannot legislate social acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority consider an aberation of the human condition.

Just wondering who this "We" is that you are speaking of, it surely wasn't social conservatives in the early 2000's who passed, in many states, not only State Constitution bans on Civil Marriage, but ban on Civil Unions also. For example this one from Virginia:

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Then there was Washington State, when full Civil Unions were passed a referendum was placed on the ballot to block it because in social conservative minds "it was to much like marriage". The measure eventually failed and the bill became law, but that is not the point. If the "We" you are speaking of is social conservatives, then no - that "we" didn't accept Civil Unions.



The door was shut by social conservatives on Civil Unions a decade ago and only now is becoming an acceptable alternative since SSCM is winning in the courts, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Oh, geez, what does it take to get through to you? Two women or two men is NOT a marriage. Its a homosexual mutual commitment, which is fine and it should be given legal status-----------but its not a marriage.

How odd. My wife and I are married in the eyes of our god, according to the state of CA and federally now. What you mean to say is "I don't like that two women or two men have a marriage so I will personally reject their marriage." That is fine for you.

are you both "wives" ? Do you have any idea how sick that is? I can accept that you have no control over your urges, but its a mental abnormality. Sorry, but you cannot deny biology.

We refer to each other as "my wife" so I guess the answer to your first question is...yes.

As to your second question, it may be "sick" in your eyes....I will try not to lose any sleep over that....ok? As for biology, I suppose you are against anything else that is "against biology"...like eyeglasses...planes....etc. And of course, because of biology you only have sex when you are having a child and boobs are only for nursing....right?

 

[bodecea]

nice little rant, but totally wrong. We want gay couples to have equal rights. We want them to be able to make a legal committment to each other and to have ir recognized as legal and binding.

Civil unions give you those rights-------------what you don't get is that you cannot legislate social acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority consider an aberation of the human condition.

Just wondering who this "We" is that you are speaking of, it surely wasn't social conservatives in the early 2000's who passed, in many states, not only State Constitution bans on Civil Marriage, but ban on Civil Unions also. For example this one from Virginia:

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Then there was Washington State, when full Civil Unions were passed a referendum was placed on the ballot to block it because in social conservative minds "it was to much like marriage". The measure eventually failed and the bill became law, but that is not the point. If the "We" you are speaking of is social conservatives, then no - that "we" didn't accept Civil Unions.



The door was shut by social conservatives on Civil Unions a decade ago and only now is becoming an acceptable alternative since SSCM is winning in the courts, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box.


>>>>

Exactly. What kind of nerve does it take to blame gays for what the conservatives rejected.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What I have held all along...buggery has nothing to do with it.

Couple who are just friends allowed to adopt, judge says in landmark ruling* - NY Daily News

It's really pathetic that you're so obsessed with other people's lives and families. Stick to your own.

Always been easier being critical of other people than ourselves.

 

[Redfish]

How odd. My wife and I are married in the eyes of our god, according to the state of CA and federally now. What you mean to say is "I don't like that two women or two men have a marriage so I will personally reject their marriage." That is fine for you.

are you both "wives" ? Do you have any idea how sick that is? I can accept that you have no control over your urges, but its a mental abnormality. Sorry, but you cannot deny biology.

We refer to each other as "my wife" so I guess the answer to your first question is...yes.

As to your second question, it may be "sick" in your eyes....I will try not to lose any sleep over that....ok? As for biology, I suppose you are against anything else that is "against biology"...like eyeglasses...planes....etc. And of course, because of biology you only have sex when you are having a child and boobs are only for nursing....right?

biology created males and females for the purpose of reproducing the species. Two women cannot reproduce, so a female/female coupling is contrary to biology.

sexual attraction is built into our brains, some brains are miswired, and thats not your fault, but it is miswiring none the less.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They can get that through civil unions, but choose to go after the term "marriage".

Good luck with that far left thinking of yours.

No, "they" can't. Civil unions do not provide the exact same rights, benefits and protections that legal civil marriage provides.

Now, if you want to make ALL legal civil marriages into Civil Unions so those icky gays can't use the word "marriage" (although we've been marrying in churches for decades), go right ahead. That wouldn't put you afoul of the Constitution like your separate but equal idea does.

Yes it does (for the except of social security) and linking to alternet a know far left blog site does not help your case.

The fact that separate but equal is unconstitutional does help her case, in fact it makes her case.