Four simple questions gay marriage supporters can't answer

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... bigot. I take a bigots words...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

So, what did we learn there?

We learned that the use of the word Bigot, is a demonstration of bigotry.

Which is nature proving once again that whatever you find a Relativist bitching about, you can rest assured that they presently guilty of it.

However your mental masturbation works to justify your being a bigot, bigot?

I could give a ****.

Hey suit yourself, scamp. Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(It's clear that you're doin' the very best you can.)

 

[G.T.]

... bigot. I take a bigots words...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

So, what did we learn there?

We learned that the use of the word Bigot, is a demonstration of bigotry.

Which is nature proving once again that whatever you find a Relativist bitching about, you can rest assured that they presently guilty of it.

However your mental masturbation works to justify your being a bigot, bigot?

I could give a ****.

Hey suit yourself, scamp. Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(It's clear that you're doin' the very best you can.)

Still dont know what duly means, huh dunce?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[blinks]

I was asking an honest question. He said the government should make marriage available to everyone, not just men and women. But...it is available to everyone.

Yes, that's entirely true.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... bigot. I take a bigots words...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

So, what did we learn there?

We learned that the use of the word Bigot, is a demonstration of bigotry.

Which is nature proving once again that whatever you find a Relativist bitching about, you can rest assured that they presently guilty of it.

However your mental masturbation works to justify your being a bigot, bigot?

I could give a ****.

Hey suit yourself, scamp. Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(It's clear that you're doin' the very best you can.)

Still dont know what duly means, huh dunce?

OH! A Re-Concession?

Super...

Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[G.T.]

Go look for your keys clownshoes

 

[bodecea]

"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.

If you want that to be your marriage....fine. I will not try to stop you. How about you extend the same courtesy to others instead of sticking your nose in other people's marriages?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Go look for your keys clownshoes

LOL!

A Re-re-concession? Seriously?

OK... Your Re-re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, this is about as close to 'literal ownership' of another human being as it gets, on a message board.)

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

 

[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?

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.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

Which is to say that human beings are not deviants as long as they do not deviate from the established standard.

So... Yeah.

 

[koshergrl]

"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.

If you want that to be your marriage....fine. I will not try to stop you. How about you extend the same courtesy to others instead of sticking your nose in other people's marriages?

In other words..abstaining from participation??

THANK YOU and YES PLEASE! That's rather the point, shortbus.

 

[Qball]

QBALL SAID:

“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.”

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

No, it doesn't. Supporters like to BS as though they're making a principled argument, but when you scratch the surface, the whole things falls apart. There are other restrictions on marriage that aren't excused away by "consenting adults" this and "love and commitment" that. These comparisons are inconvenient to your point so you'd rather ignore them.

You also succeed in only continuing to exhibit your ignorance of the law and the issue.

Like I said: when people have no point to make, they criticize. "Nuh uh because you're stupid" isn't a counterargument.

The contract law that is marriage is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Three or more persons may not marry, nor those who are close relatives, nor those who already have a spouse because marriage law is not written to accommodate such configurations; one cannot be 'denied' access to a law he is not eligible to participate in, and consequently no civil rights 'violation' occurs.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, just as the laws are written now, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined' – where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in does manifest as a civil rights violation.

This is a distinction without a difference. All you're doing is making a qualitative argument...saying that sense same-sex couples are similar enough to male/female couples that they somehow enjoy an entitlement to legal marriage other couples don't. The right to marry is a contract, but the reason the government recognizes marriage is distinct from other contracts it may recognize.

 

[G.T.]

Go look for your keys clownshoes

LOL!

A Re-re-concession? Seriously?

OK... Your Re-re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, this is about as close to 'literal ownership' of another human being as it gets, on a message board.)

Youre the perfect example of a schizophrenic.

Would i be off base to assume youre a virgin, too?

Nah. My hunches are rarely wrong.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

Its intellectual cowardice.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

Tradition is often nothing more than societies doing the wrong thing for a very long time.

Wrong. Societies who have been around for a very long time prove their traditions are the right thing.

One man/one woman is not a tradition. Its actually relatively new.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Youre the perfect example of a schizophrenic.

Would i be off base to assume youre a virgin, too?

Nah. My hunches are rarely wrong.

Well... you'd be as accurate on this as is customary of your previous professions.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its intellectual cowardice.

LOL! Now that's just sad.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

And the gay discrimination laws don't discriminate against gays so the fundies are changing them so they don't discriminate against gays.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Matrimony is a sacrament and as such it is a sign to the world of the invisible God living in our midst - the living God who bears fruit in the lives of two people."

THE LIVING SACRAMENT MARRIAGE

For those who believe that - fine.

I'm hetero, happily married and I think that's a lot of mumbo jumbo.

Does that make my marriage invalid?

 

[G.T.]

Fear is so unflattering.

Maybe thats why only curmudgeons identify with social conservatism.

 

[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. 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.

Please don't throw a link at me and say "it's in there". Name one protection granted to persons based on their status of being legally married. If you have a link, it shouldn't be that difficult.

I used neither the term "adding" or "subtracting". I said "legalizing" because that's what has happened either by the courts or legislature in most states.

I love the game you guys play...

Homosexuals are not discriminated against as long as they act straight

It's not a game. Words have meanings. It's hard to cry "discrimination" when you can't show how people are being demonstrably treated differently under the law.