Four simple questions gay marriage supporters can't answer

[Syriusly]

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.

Just because a man hasn't taken it up the ass doesn't mean he's a virgin.

LOL....lots of girls used to make that argument......

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

For #1 and #2: Yes, of course. People get married because they love each other. If a homosexual man and a homosexual woman love each other why couldn't they marry?

 

[Syriusly]

Screw your 4 questions. Here's one simple question. Why can't you mind your own ******* business?

Because laws we pass are my business as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. Somehow I doubt you'd ask this if I said I supported SSM.

Okay- then why are you- you specifically- opposed to a same gender couple marrying who, other than their gender, are exactly the same as my wife and I- together for over 20 years, with a child.

Why are you specifically opposed to them being married?

 

[koshergrl]

Screw your 4 questions. Here's one simple question. Why can't you mind your own ******* business?

Because laws we pass are my business as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. Somehow I doubt you'd ask this if I said I supported SSM.

Okay- then why are you- you specifically- opposed to a same gender couple marrying who, other than their gender, are exactly the same as my wife and I- together for over 20 years, with a child.

Why are you specifically opposed to them being married?

We're not specifically opposed to them entering a contract.

But don't expect Christians to consider a sacrament, as regular marriage is.

The reason we specifically objected to the state re-defining marriage was because we knew that as soon as that happened, the ****** gestapo would start trying to penalize and criminalize Christians who refuse to recognize (and attend) the fake weddings as a sacrament. The state has no authority to dictate to us what constitutes a sacrament. And we knew that as soon as the state recognized the unions of faggots as *marriages* the faggots would attempt to use that leverage to oppress and persecut the church and Christians.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Yes.

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.

Not having to testify against each other in court. Social security benefits.

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?

Nope. Its not strange. In fact, its the way most civil rights are recognized. Interracial marriage bans fell the exact same way.

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

5th, 9th, and 14th.

Read Windsor v. US for the 5th, and any of the 44 of 46 federal rulings that overturn state gay marriage bans for the 14th. Read the 9th.

And did I miss the questions that same sex marriage supporters 'can't answer'? Because those are all thoroughly answerable.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a sacrament.

No amount of bad laws or temper tantrums will force Christians to commit sacrilege by attending homo mock marriages. Give up.

Marriage is ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No it's not. Since there are both same sex marriages and polygamous marriages in existence throughout humanity, now and in the past,

it's absurd to deny irrefutable evidence and claim that only one variation of marriage exists.

Christians recognize marriage as a sacrament. They do not recognize the marriage between fags as a sacrament, and will not participate in the mockery of marriage that the celebrations of these unions comprise. And the state will never be able to force us to..

Then don't got to any gay marriages- no one will force you.

Now if your state has a law which tells business's that they cannot discriminate against someone for their religion- you can't refuse to provide service to a divorced man who is getting remarried because of his religious choices, and you can't refuse services to a gay couple who are getting married because they are gay.

If you don't like that law- change the law. But don't complain that the law applies to Christian's also.

 

[Syriusly]

Screw your 4 questions. Here's one simple question. Why can't you mind your own ******* business?

Because laws we pass are my business as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. Somehow I doubt you'd ask this if I said I supported SSM.

Okay- then why are you- you specifically- opposed to a same gender couple marrying who, other than their gender, are exactly the same as my wife and I- together for over 20 years, with a child.

Why are you specifically opposed to them being married?

We're not specifically opposed to them entering a contract.

But don't expect Christians to consider a sacrament, as regular marriage is.

I could care less whether your particular sect doesn't marry homosexuals.

Why are you specifically opposed to a gay couple being legally married?

 

[Syriusly]

Screw your 4 questions. Here's one simple question. Why can't you mind your own ******* business?

Because laws we pass are my business as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. Somehow I doubt you'd ask this if I said I supported SSM.

Okay- then why are you- you specifically- opposed to a same gender couple marrying who, other than their gender, are exactly the same as my wife and I- together for over 20 years, with a child.

Why are you specifically opposed to them being married?

, the ****** gestapo.

f*ggot- n*gger- k*ke- c*nt- all the same kinds of words- used by bigots- for the same purposes.

 

[Skylar]

They are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the partner they love

Your....Gays can always be straight, so they are not really discriminated against is laughable

So are polygamists and guys who want to marry their sisters.

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

The arguments in support of so-called "gay marriage" can all be used to support polygamy and incestuous marriages. The "specific" reason for outlawing the later is the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of facilitating reproduction.

Then explain all the infertile couples that are allowed to marry or remain married. You can't.

NO ONE is excluded from marriage because they can't have children. No one. Why then would exclude gays from marriage for their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

 

[rightwinger]

They are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the partner they love

Your....Gays can always be straight, so they are not really discriminated against is laughable

So are polygamists and guys who want to marry their sisters.

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

The arguments in support of so-called "gay marriage" can all be used to support polygamy and incestuous marriages. The "specific" reason for outlawing the later is the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of facilitating reproduction.

But you already know that not to be true
Many couples who cannot reproduce are allowed to marry

Try again

 

[rightwinger]

So are polygamists and guys who want to marry their sisters.

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

The arguments in support of so-called "gay marriage" can all be used to support polygamy and incestuous marriages. The "specific" reason for outlawing the later is the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of facilitating reproduction.

Then explain all the infertile couples that are allowed to marry or remain married. You can't.

NO ONE is excluded from marriage because they can't have children. No one. Why then would exclude gays from marriage for their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

There is nothing about gay marriage that prevents heterosexual couples from continuing to have children

Thus, no impact on societies ability to reproduce

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Qball and Delta4Embassy
Marriage beliefs are already protected by religious freedom and the Fourteenth Amendment to exercise these equally.
The problem is trying to write out marriage laws under the state, which has brought out these conflicting beliefs.
NEITHER SIDE can be forced by govt to compromise their beliefs.
Thus, marriage should remain private outside govt
and keep the secular laws SECULAR such as agreeing on the terms used, as in civil unions or contracts.
And not spelling out the terms of marriage unless all parties agree, to avoid discriminating, imposing or excluding by creed.

 

[emilynghiem]

So are polygamists and guys who want to marry their sisters.

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

The arguments in support of so-called "gay marriage" can all be used to support polygamy and incestuous marriages. The "specific" reason for outlawing the later is the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of facilitating reproduction.

But you already know that not to be true
Many couples who cannot reproduce are allowed to marry

Try again

rightwinger
then those laws can be argued to change as well.

keep all marriage laws out of govt that people disagree on and/or which don't apply to all cases,
and only keep the language that is agreed on as applying to all cases.

Instead of just FORCING terms of marriage through the state, which clearly violates the beliefs of many opponents,
give EQUAL option to REMOVE marriage from the state in order to correct the unequal access.

The issue should be to make things equal under the state, not to push one agenda or the other.
So if this means REMOVING marriage, so that it is equal, then just replace it with civil unions and leave
marriage and beliefs about it to the people not the state to decide.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

The arguments in support of so-called "gay marriage" can all be used to support polygamy and incestuous marriages. The "specific" reason for outlawing the later is the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of facilitating reproduction.

But you already know that not to be true
Many couples who cannot reproduce are allowed to marry

Try again

rightwinger
then those laws can be argued to change as well.

keep all marriage laws out of govt that people disagree on and/or which don't apply to all cases,
and only keep the language that is agreed on as applying to all cases.

Instead of just FORCING terms of marriage through the state, which clearly violates the beliefs of many opponents,
give EQUAL option to REMOVE marriage from the state in order to correct the unequal access.

The issue should be to make things equal under the state, not to push one agenda or the other.
So if this means REMOVING marriage, so that it is equal, then just replace it with civil unions and leave
marriage and beliefs about it to the people not the state to decide.

Get over the word hangup. It's invalid.

 

[rightwinger]

Homosexuality is not against the law

Polygamy and incest are

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

The arguments in support of so-called "gay marriage" can all be used to support polygamy and incestuous marriages. The "specific" reason for outlawing the later is the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of facilitating reproduction.

But you already know that not to be true
Many couples who cannot reproduce are allowed to marry

Try again

rightwinger
then those laws can be argued to change as well.

keep all marriage laws out of govt that people disagree on and/or which don't apply to all cases,
and only keep the language that is agreed on as applying to all cases.

Instead of just FORCING terms of marriage through the state, which clearly violates the beliefs of many opponents,
give EQUAL option to REMOVE marriage from the state in order to correct the unequal access.

The issue should be to make things equal under the state, not to push one agenda or the other.
So if this means REMOVING marriage, so that it is equal, then just replace it with civil unions and leave
marriage and beliefs about it to the people not the state to decide.

Works until the marriage dissolves and then the couple wants "the state" to resolve things
Terms and legal responsibilities of a marriage need to be consistent and enforceable

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Screw your 4 questions. Here's one simple question. Why can't you mind your own ******* business?

FIVE!

We now have Five of our in-house fascists who've come to profess their 'feelings' that Sexual deviancy should stand superior to the means of Christians exercise their rights.

"..to the means of Christians exercise their rights." Screw that. A lot of people aren't Christian.

Why don't you form your own country somewhere besides the U.S. and declare it a theocracy?

 

[emilynghiem]

You're doing something most liberals do when they realize they're losing the argument; they start "grunting". Providing pushback in snipped, short sentences. Not really making a point but saying just enough to keep the conversation going. They don't want to say too much because they don't want to be proven wrong, but what they are saying is silly and half-formed. "Homosexuality is not against the law"...makes no sense to what he said to your statement that gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry the people they love.

Failure on your part

Using examples of relationships that break the law does not support your case against gay marriage

Society has established specific reasons why they won't tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality or whatever other hysteria you trump up

They have yet to establish a reason where gay marriage harms anyone

The arguments in support of so-called "gay marriage" can all be used to support polygamy and incestuous marriages. The "specific" reason for outlawing the later is the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of facilitating reproduction.

But you already know that not to be true
Many couples who cannot reproduce are allowed to marry

Try again

rightwinger
then those laws can be argued to change as well.

keep all marriage laws out of govt that people disagree on and/or which don't apply to all cases,
and only keep the language that is agreed on as applying to all cases.

Instead of just FORCING terms of marriage through the state, which clearly violates the beliefs of many opponents,
give EQUAL option to REMOVE marriage from the state in order to correct the unequal access.

The issue should be to make things equal under the state, not to push one agenda or the other.
So if this means REMOVING marriage, so that it is equal, then just replace it with civil unions and leave
marriage and beliefs about it to the people not the state to decide.

Works until the marriage dissolves and then the couple wants "the state" to resolve things
Terms and legal responsibilities of a marriage need to be consistent and enforceable

^ this can be done for CIVIL UNIONS, domestic partnerships and custody/estate arrangements, and not necessitate language that people don't agree on. all the same things can be done through secular civil contracts with neutral terms ^

 

[g5000]

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?

In a state that does not recognize interracial marriage, could a black woman and a white man or a white woman and a black man 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?

In a state that does not recognize interracial marriage, could a white man and a white woman obtain a marriage license as spouses?

Yes. But they would not be marrying who they wish to marry.

Questions 1 and 2 are the same bullshit, different decade.

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

A spouse is able to collect Social Security survivor benefits, by law.

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?

If you believe owning a firearm is a right, is it strange to have some states legalize owning a firearm through a legislative vote and others legalize it through the judicial process? Why or why not?

Could this difference be because some states think they can vote away someone's rights? Hmmm...

 

[g5000]

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

"We've always oppressed these people" is the worst possible excuse for continuing a discriminatory practice.

 

[g5000]

^ this can be done for CIVIL UNIONS, domestic partnerships and custody/estate arrangements, and not necessitate language that people don't agree on. all the same things can be done through secular civil contracts with neutral terms ^

The same "separate but equal" bullshit, different decade.