Four simple questions gay marriage supporters can't answer

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You have no right to oppose it is the point constitutionally. Your opposition is meaningless.

 

[g5000]

So much for the bogus premise of the topic title.

 

[g5000]

[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.

I would love to see you go to whatever Church you belong to and start spouting off about "faggots" in a loud and clear voice.

 

[g5000]

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.

Just like the N*gg*r Gestapo forced Christians to serve them at lunch counters. Right?

Same bullshit, different decade.

 

[Syriusly]

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 ^

Or we could just include same gender couples in marriage.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is concerned whether the far right social cons consider marriage equality a sacrament.

 

[Qball]

[my questions]

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?

Because their government ultimately has no compelling reason to recognize them as they do yours. I made a thread a few years ago explaining this, but legal marriage basically serves two functions: 1) to create a social safety net for those at an economic disadvantage (women, children), and 2) to facilitate the phenomena of childbirth.

Economically, women are more vulnerable than men. What is the key difference between women and men (that the government cares about)? They can and likely will have children. Women take months off of work to have children. Women tend to come out of the workplace to raise children. Men...tend not to.

Men work and earn more than women, and thus, women and their children are reliant on them for sustenance (not as much now, but traditionally, this has been the case). The "rights and benefits" tied to marriage exist for this reason. If a man lost his job, got sick and died, left his family, got sent to war and died, was disabled and could no longer work...the government would provide benefits for his family.

Children are not a natural consequence of same-sex unions. They can obtain kids, but that relationship is categorically barren. So thus, bestowing costly benefits and incentives to these couples is not a necessary investment.

Well that is a great rationalization for discrimination.

Lets talk about each one separately

1) Create a social safety net for those at an economic disadvantage
Marriage laws do not care about that.

Yes they do. What your mean to say is YOU don't care about that.

Marriage laws do not care whether or not the woman is a millionaire and the man is an accountant. At one time, women were considered less than equal in marriage- but legally that changed. What marriage laws do is create a partnership- a presumed life long partnership between two people where they commit to care for each other financially. This creates a 'social safety net' for both of the spouses- and this is a benefit to the state, as the state is less likely to be faced with supporting an indigent single person, if there two potential wage earners in a partnership.

You're presenting this as an either/or when what you're saying doesn't move the needle from what I said. Legal marriage confers certain benefits to couples because of those who are at an economic disadvantage. Marriage being seen as a partnership is mostly for the woman's benefit given that women tend to work and earn less than men, and because they have children. The state isn't worried about "supporting an indigent single person", which is why they tend not to.

2) 'Facilitate the phenomena of Childbirth'- again this is simply not true. The State of Wisconsin for example allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. The State does not care whether or not a couple can have, desires to have, or ever has any children- naturally, through artificial conception, or through adoption. Straight couples have children regardless of whether they are married or not. Couples get married even if they are infertile. And gay people do have children.

This is a little silly, and part of me thinks you know that and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course the state cares about childbirth. You can make any argument you want about the degree to which they go to achieve that goal, but it is indeed there. You can't compare a circumstantial distinction with a categorical one -- meaning, straight couples have children and same-sex couples don't. Same-sex couples can obtain kids, but that child isn't borne out of that union. The biological complementarity of the sexes isn't moot just because there are exceptions.

Again- your statement that 'that relationship is categorically barren' is both false- and offensive to those who cannot conceive children themselves.

A lesbian couple can have children in the exact same manner as any straight couple in which the husband is infertile. A gay couple can have a child in the exact same fashion as a couple where the wife is unable to bare a child, and uses surrogacy. And all gay couples can adopt children in exactly the same manner that straight couples can adopt children.

...which makes my point. SAME-SEX COUPLES CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN. It's not pejorative because it's inconvenient to your point that just wants to dismiss the particulars and then argue the contrary position. You asked me a question and I answered it. I didn't lie or filibuster.

You seem to be implying that couples- straight or gay- who cannot conceive through intercourse are less valuable to the state than those who can. I would argue that those who adopt are instead even more valuable to the state and should be more encouraged to marry.

Back to my original question:
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?

My wife and I have 1 child. A gay couple I know have 2 children. In both cases, we are committed couples who have been together for over 20 years.

Why do you think that the children of the gay couple should not have married parents but that my child does deserve married parents?

First of all, I'm not implying anything. For the purposes of legal marriage, the government has no reason to bestow benefits and incentives on fundamentally barren couples. Even if they can bring children into the fold, that relationship has no fecundity. You think I'm making an emotional argument when I'm just telling the truth. There are probably plenty of gay people who would and will make great parents, but you can't ask why we recognize one and not the other and then when I give you a straight answer that 100% truthful you act as if I'm name-calling and picking at people.

Your question about why children with gay parents can't have married parents is a red herring and strawman. Like I've said, that child wasn't the result of that relationship, so even if both his mommys are married, that isn't how he came to be. I don't even know that gay parenting is something we want to facilitate as if it's the same as mothers and fathers raising their kids. Allow? Sure. But we don't need to assume the distinction between having a mother and father raising a children, and two mommys or two daddys, is the exact same thing, because it's not, and the latter having access to a marriage license doesn't change that.

[my questions]

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?

Because their government ultimately has no compelling reason to recognize them as they do yours. I made a thread a few years ago explaining this, but legal marriage basically serves two functions: 1) to create a social safety net for those at an economic disadvantage (women, children), and 2) to facilitate the phenomena of childbirth.

Economically, women are more vulnerable than men. What is the key difference between women and men (that the government cares about)? They can and likely will have children. Women take months off of work to have children. Women tend to come out of the workplace to raise children. Men...tend not to.

Men work and earn more than women, and thus, women and their children are reliant on them for sustenance (not as much now, but traditionally, this has been the case). The "rights and benefits" tied to marriage exist for this reason. If a man lost his job, got sick and died, left his family, got sent to war and died, was disabled and could no longer work...the government would provide benefits for his family.

Children are not a natural consequence of same-sex unions. They can obtain kids, but that relationship is categorically barren. So thus, bestowing costly benefits and incentives to these couples is not a necessary investment.

Well that is a great rationalization for discrimination.

Lets talk about each one separately

1) Create a social safety net for those at an economic disadvantage
Marriage laws do not care about that. Marriage laws do not care whether or not the woman is a millionaire and the man is an accountant. At one time, women were considered less than equal in marriage- but legally that changed. What marriage laws do is create a partnership- a presumed life long partnership between two people where they commit to care for each other financially. This creates a 'social safety net' for both of the spouses- and this is a benefit to the state, as the state is less likely to be faced with supporting an indigent single person, if there two potential wage earners in a partnership.

2) 'Facilitate the phenomena of Childbirth'- again this is simply not true. The State of Wisconsin for example allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. The State does not care whether or not a couple can have, desires to have, or ever has any children- naturally, through artificial conception, or through adoption. Straight couples have children regardless of whether they are married or not. Couples get married even if they are infertile. And gay people do have children.

Again- your statement that 'that relationship is categorically barren' is both false- and offensive to those who cannot conceive children themselves.

A lesbian couple can have children in the exact same manner as any straight couple in which the husband is infertile. A gay couple can have a child in the exact same fashion as a couple where the wife is unable to bare a child, and uses surrogacy. And all gay couples can adopt children in exactly the same manner that straight couples can adopt children.

You seem to be implying that couples- straight or gay- who cannot conceive through intercourse are less valuable to the state than those who can. I would argue that those who adopt are instead even more valuable to the state and should be more encouraged to marry.

Back to my original question:
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?

My wife and I have 1 child. A gay couple I know have 2 children. In both cases, we are committed couples who have been together for over 20 years.

Why do you think that the children of the gay couple should not have married parents but that my child does deserve married parents?

 

[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.

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.

[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.

And I will ask again- are you unable to tell the difference between humans(everyone) and dogs?

You:
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[/QUOTE]

[-insert eyeroll emoticon here-]

That poster wasn't clear in what he was saying which is what prompted my response.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This thread is horse shit.
Gay marriage is here. Our society has evolved.
Let us move on

 

[Qball]

3- one? Estate tax protection. Visitation rights. Community property protections.

There is no such thing as "estate tax protection" or "community property protections". Adding the word "protections" to the end of these terms don't make them protections. "Visitation rights" are not "rights" in the constitutional sense nor are they exclusive to married couples.
.

Then you tell me what the hell you are talking about when you are talking about 'protections'?
Do you think that married couples get any protections? I do.

It's a trick question (which I've pretty much discerned the pro-SSM crowd doesn't get). You guys love to say same-sex marriage is required under the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause. So the next logical question is "what protections are tied to marriage?" It's a trick question because the answer is there are no protections tied to marital status. In the eyes of the government you're either a married or unmarried individual. What sense would it make for the government to moreso protect married people than legally single people? How wouldany recognition of marriage be constitutional if you were given protections solely based on your marital status? It wouldn't. There are benefits and incentives tied to marital status that might or might not affect you depending on your situation, but there are no protections. Which is why the Equal Protection Clause has nothing to do with same-sex marriage not being legal.

And because I'm a smart person who knows what you're going to say next, the reason Loving v. Virginia applied is because anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that went beyond the mere issue of recognition. Equal Protection means irrespective of your classification you're entitled to the protections of the law; meaning, your rights to life, liberty (your literal freedom), and property are not subject to being abridged in a court of law or some other governing body simply due to your race, religion, sex, etc. It doesn't mean the government wont create a benefit that doesn't apply to your situation, or you're exempted from it because of a choice you've made. If that was the case, everyone would be entitled to VA benefits even if they never served, employed people would still be able to collect unemployment checks, able-bodied people could receive SSI, etc.

Among the 'benefits' of marriage are:

• Estate Tax Protection- this was the basis of the DOMA/Windsor lawsuit- Edith Windsor was legally married to her partner of over 30 years, but because Federal law did not recognize her marriage to a woman, the IRS required her to pay estate taxes on her interitance of their community property. If Edith Windsor had been married to a man, their joint estate would have been automatically protected- smells like protection, sounds like protection. You want to deny gay couples the same protection from estate taxes that married couples like my wife or I will be able to take advantage of.
  
• Visitation Rights are automatic to married couples. This is a particularly important issue for gay couples, because there have been many instances where the healthy partner of the gay couple has been denied visitation by the sick partner's next legal kin- parents or siblings. My wife and I do not have to make any special provisions so she can visit me in the hospital- but you think that gay couples should have to go through additional legal hoops.
• Community property protection- a straight couple can choose whether or not to be legally protected by community property protections of marriage law- if they want to forgo marriage, they can usually forgo community property- I have a relative doing just that. However- they can choose to get married- you want to deny a gay couple that same option of protection.

None of these are protections...period. Visitation rights aren't even "rights" per se, because you don't have to be married to visit someone in the hospital.