Four simple questions gay marriage supporters can't answer

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“I've been arguing this for a long time...”

And without any success, given the fact you're as ignorant as the OP.

Truth is not a matter of persuasion, it's an absolute and intransigent construct. If I fail to sway people, it's not because I'm not arguing the truth, but rather because of weaknesses in my advocacy of the truth.

 

[Qball]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1. Yes (no one asks to see you consumate things. 'Marriages of convenience' used to be very popular when homosexuality was illegal.)

2. Yes (see above)

3. Hospital visitation right.

4. Marriage is a civil contract. Wouldn't say getting married is a right. It's just a legal contract as far as the government is concerned.

14th Amendment. If the government can define what a marriage is (insofar as it, the government is concerned, and what rights and benefits it'll grant because you get married) then it must make marriage available to everyone. Not just men-women.

I think you misunderstand the first question. In a state where same-sex marriage isn't recognized, can two people heterosexual people of the same sex legally marry?

"Hospital visitation right" is neither a protection nor is it exclusive to married couples.

And the government must make marriage available to everyone...not just men and women? Who else is there? Cats and dogs.

 

[Syriusly]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1- no
2- no
3- one? Estate tax protection. Visitation rights. Community property protections.
4- No- the same thing happened with mixed race marriage laws. Many states had repealed their bans on mixed race marriage laws, but many states had not- the Federal courts said that such bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional- that the States arguments that any man could marry any woman so long as both were black or both were white was unconstitutional. Finally the Supreme Court settled the issue- as will likely happen this year with same gender marriage.
5- This is a two parter- and I would refer you to any of the court decisions regarding same sex marriage which discusses them at length- there are two parts:
a) Marriage is a settled right in the United States- according to the Supreme Court this predates the Constitution but is also covered under the 14th Amendments guarantees.
b) The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, and due process under the law. The couples suing have successfully argued that they did not have equal protection- because the law prevents them from marrying someone that they would legally be able to marry other than their gender.

Here is my question to you:
My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- why shouldn't a same gender couple have the exact same right to marry each other as my wife and I had?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

QBALL SAID:

“So based on your answers to #1 and 2, it's safe to say a state not allowing same-sex marriage isn't actually discriminating on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not banned from marrying in the way allowed under the law, and heterosexuals are not allowed to marry in a way proscribed by the law.”

Incorrect.

The mistake you make is to focus on gender, as gender is not at issue.

State measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are un-Constitutional because they violate the protected liberty of choice and self-determination recognized by the Fifth and 14th Amendments:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon [a homosexual] relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, having nothing whatsoever to do with 'gender.'

 

[Syriusly]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1. No, because, as you stated, that state does not recognize same-sex marriage.
2. Yes, and probably have in the past.
3. Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign (and these are only Federal rights...each state would have more)
4. It's not a question of adding, it's a question of subtracting....getting rid of laws PREVENTING it.

So based on your answers to #1 and 2, it's safe to say a state not allowing same-sex marriage isn't actually discriminating on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not banned from marrying in the way allowed under the law, and heterosexuals are not allowed to marry in a way proscribed by the law.

The exact same argument was used by the State of Virginia when they argued for the legality of mixed race marriage bans.

Blacks were not banned from marrying in any way allowed under the law, and whites were not banned from marrying under the law- they were just banned from marrying each other.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Here is my question to you:
My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- why shouldn't a same gender couple have the exact same right to marry each other as my wife and I had?

They should. In whatever state defines marriage that way. This is the problem I have with you people is there's no sense of compromise, only a desire to obliterate all opposition and have it all. A Supreme Court decision returning gay marriage to the states would not end gay marriage any more than overturning Roe V. Wade would end abortion in America. What it would do is allow the states their constitutional right to define an issue over which the federal government has no delegated power. That means no matter what gays can marry. But that's not enough for you people, you demand that you should marry everywhere and even force pastors, christian owned businesses and everyone else to cater to your lifestyle. This kind of absolutism is not only evil and bigoted, it's unamerican.

 

[Qball]

It is screwing with a tradition that goes back thousands of years. The family is the building bloc of society.

What tradition is that? The tradition of two people who love each other wanting to make a commitment to one another for life? Tell ya what, you won't to deny other human beings the right to make a commitment to their love the way heterosexuals make a commitment to theirs, fine. Then make divorce illegal.

That people like you and the OP feel so threatened by this issue is remarkable. You do understand that no one will force you into a same sex marriage, right?

And before you go off, I am not a liberal. I am just not so conservative that my brain has shrunk.

But this is a bit silly and disingenuous, though.

Can I marry a woman in Georgia, then legally marry another woman in Alabama? No. Can I marry someone under the legal "marriageable" age? No. Can I marry a close relative? For the most part, no. Can I marry two, three, twelve women at once? No. But what if I'm "in love" and want to "make a commitment"? The answer is still no.

So I'm not fearful of being forced into a same-sex marriage. No one is. But it's kind of ridiculous to say that this is just about love and commitment at the end of the day as if this specific distinction is the only one that exists.

 

[Syriusly]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1. Yes (no one asks to see you consumate things. 'Marriages of convenience' used to be very popular when homosexuality was illegal.)

2. Yes (see above)

3. Hospital visitation right.

4. Marriage is a civil contract. Wouldn't say getting married is a right. It's just a legal contract as far as the government is concerned.

14th Amendment. If the government can define what a marriage is (insofar as it, the government is concerned, and what rights and benefits it'll grant because you get married) then it must make marriage available to everyone. Not just men-women.

And the government must make marriage available to everyone...not just men and women? Who else is there? Cats and dogs.

See- even though I knew where you were going with this thread, I was willing to accept that you had a legitimate argument to be made somewhere- and then you went with the 'cats and dogs'.

Tell me- can you tell the difference between humans- and dogs?

If you are unable to tell why we allow two adult humans to marry- and why we will not be allowing dogs and cats to marry each other- then you are too far down the rabbit hole to have a discussion with.

 

[Nosmo King]

It is screwing with a tradition that goes back thousands of years. The family is the building bloc of society.

Thousands of years? You don't study history very well, do you.

 

[jon_berzerk]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

1. Yes (no one asks to see you consumate things. 'Marriages of convenience' used to be very popular when homosexuality was illegal.)

2. Yes (see above)

3. Hospital visitation right.

4. Marriage is a civil contract. Wouldn't say getting married is a right. It's just a legal contract as far as the government is concerned.

14th Amendment. If the government can define what a marriage is (insofar as it, the government is concerned, and what rights and benefits it'll grant because you get married) then it must make marriage available to everyone. Not just men-women.

I think you misunderstand the first question. In a state where same-sex marriage isn't recognized, can two people heterosexual people of the same sex legally marry?

"Hospital visitation right" is neither a protection nor is it exclusive to married couples.

And the government must make marriage available to everyone...not just men and women? Who else is there? Cats and dogs.

can groups of three or four or more legally marry nowadayz

 

[Syriusly]

Here is my question to you:
My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- why shouldn't a same gender couple have the exact same right to marry each other as my wife and I had?

They should. In whatever state defines marriage that way. This is the problem I have with you people is there's no sense of compromise, only a desire to obliterate all opposition and have it all. A Supreme Court decision returning gay marriage to the states would not end gay marriage any more than overturning Roe V. Wade would end abortion in America. What it would do is allow the states their constitutional right to define an issue over which the federal government has no delegated power. That means no matter what gays can marry. But that's not enough for you people, you demand that you should marry everywhere and even force pastors, christian owned businesses and everyone else to cater to your lifestyle. This kind of absolutism is not only evil and bigoted, it's unamerican.

Sorry- we have a long history of the courts telling states that they don't get to have unconstitutional marriage laws.

Didn't work with mixed race marriage bans, didn't work with laws preventing parents who owed child support from marrying and didn't work on bans of inmates from marrying.

What is evil is thinking that Americans do not have- and should not have recourse to the courts to oppose what they consider to be unconstitutional laws.

And my 'lifestyle'? I am happily married with a child- my lifestyle is working, parenting, husbanding and being good to people.

Nobody has to 'cater' to my lifestyle- but if they refuse to do business with me because I am an atheist, or a heterosexual, or because of the color of my skin- well then I have no problem with using laws that have been in effect since 1964.

 

[Syriusly]

It is screwing with a tradition that goes back thousands of years. The family is the building bloc of society.

What tradition is that? The tradition of two people who love each other wanting to make a commitment to one another for life? Tell ya what, you won't to deny other human beings the right to make a commitment to their love the way heterosexuals make a commitment to theirs, fine. Then make divorce illegal.

That people like you and the OP feel so threatened by this issue is remarkable. You do understand that no one will force you into a same sex marriage, right?

And before you go off, I am not a liberal. I am just not so conservative that my brain has shrunk.

But this is a bit silly and disingenuous, though.

Can I marry a woman in Georgia, then legally marry another woman in Alabama? No. Can I marry someone under the legal "marriageable" age? No. Can I marry a close relative? For the most part, no. Can I marry two, three, twelve women at once? No. But what if I'm "in love" and want to "make a commitment"? The answer is still no.

So I'm not fearful of being forced into a same-sex marriage. No one is. But it's kind of ridiculous to say that this is just about love and commitment at the end of the day as if this specific distinction is the only one that exists.

And in each of those cases- a heterosexual/opposite gender couple would face the exact same legal restrictions as a homosexual/same gender couple.

Still looking for an answer from you:

My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- why do you think that a same gender couple should not have the same right to marriage as my wife and I have enjoyed?

 

[Qball]

"Four simple questions gay marriage supporters can't answer"

There is no such thing a 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states that can accommodate either same- or opposite-sex couples.

“As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced.”

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the issue concerns the states seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, that this is a civil rights issue is beyond dispute, and your remaining 'unconvinced' is a consequence of your ignorance of the issue and the law, as you've demonstrated with your 'questions.'

I'm not ignorant of the issue or the law. I just know a lot of people like to employ flowery language to avoid the fact that straight-ahead questions like the ones I posed don't make the argument for same-sex marriage very strong. It's cool to say "why can't people just marry the people that they love?" because that question avoids specifics. But when it's pointed out that the law doesn't actually discriminate on the basis of sex or orientation, there is no "protection" tied to legal marriage, and nothing in the Constitution mandates recognition of same-sex marriage, people tend to default to insults. Like you did.

 

[Qball]

Cowardly questions in the OP

Cowardly, how so?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

No.

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

Yes.

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

Spouse can't be forced to testify against their spouse; given the single legal entity and protections from self-incrimination.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

It's Relativism... of course it's strange.

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

None... .

 

[G.T.]

Cowardly questions in the OP

Cowardly, how so?

Because the whole childish notion that "ohhh.. they can marry too!"

(But only to straght people like everyone else and so uh...seee! No discrimination!!)

Is a cowardly fucking canaard, its bending over fucking backwards intellectually to justify a childish and pig headed bias.

 

[Lakhota]

As bad as it is, many states have legalized SSM due to court decision. A lot of people claim to support same-sex marriage because it's a matter of civil rights...allegedly. I remain unconvinced. I have four questions that I want same-sex marriage supporters to answer to convince me. Just four simple, easy questions:

1. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women obtain a marriage license as spouses?

2. In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, could a homosexual man and a homosexual woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

3. Name a protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married.

4. If you believe it is a civil right, is it strange to have some states legalize same-sex marriage through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Bonus question: which amendment(s) guarantee a right to same-sex marriage? Explain your answer.

Holy shit, is this a Zen riddle?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Four simple questions gay marriage supporters can't answer"

There is no such thing a 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states that can accommodate either same- or opposite-sex couples.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because the whole childish notion that "ohhh.. they can marry too!" (But only to straght people like everyone else and so uh...seee! No discrimination!!) Is a cowardly fucking canaard, its bending over fucking backwards intellectually to justify a childish and pig headed bias.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[G.T.]

Cowardly questions in the OP

Cowardly, how so?

Because the whole childish notion that "ohhh.. they can marry too!"

(But only to straght people like everyone else and so uh...seee! No discrimination!!)

Is a cowardly fucking canaard, its bending over fucking backwards intellectually to justify a childish and pig headed bias.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

I dont give a rats ass what your opinion is, bigot.

I take a bigots words with about as much weight as a 4 year old's.