Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[DOTR]

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Once again the ignorance of our Constitution is broadcast for the world to read.

Art. 1, sec. 8 clause 1 states in full:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
​

Where in the COTUS is general Welfare defined?

If we are to consider the Preamble to COTUS as a mission/vision statement, the concept of a general Welfare along with a common defence (defense) are a guarantee of protection to each individual citizen of civil rights, not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Thus, the congress via the taxing power can pass legislation to provide cradle to grave protection against disease to each of us, and a guarantee to each citizen that the civil rights (life, liberty, property and happiness) equally to all.

 

[WinterBorn]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires. I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.

Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all. But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.

And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage. Like requiring that they be the same race.

 

[WinterBorn]

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?

They can. Well, they can form 7 couples and marry. But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?

Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.

That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.

 

[DOTR]

It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires. I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.

Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all. But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.

And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage. Like requiring that they be the same race.

Your polls are wrong but its a moot point. Polls are to a liberal elitist what The Ten Commandments were to Moses. Enjoy, but we shouldn't be governed by what NBC says the people want.
The liberal is a craven being. He apes Hollywood cebutards, the billionaires and the DC oligarchy. Somehow he finds it brave to stand with power and scream at the serfs.
And the people manifestly didn't want it. The people defeated in their votes time after time. That isn't an arguable statement. When it was put to the people it lost. As in abortion and school prayer and feminism the elites move it eventually to the media, which they control, and to whichever courts they control. No wonder Podesta and billionaire Clinton supporters snicker at the idea of "democracy" in his emails. WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails
I dont care if you want the government in marriage. It is our culture and history and legal system which treats the family differently than the individual. No matter what any individual liberal bemoans that is simply another fact. At no time have our people decided to rise up and overthrow the legal sanction of marriage. We liked it the way it was.
Yes there were always conditions on marriage. Race sometimes, age, degree of kinship, previous marital status, blood tests had to be performed at times. What matter is that? All were intended to strengthen the institution and help preserve the privileged position of a married couple.
In the end the facts are we the people created marriage, wove it into every level of government and refused to bastardize it with homosexuals. And we the people were overturned. I'm not sure there is anything left to argue. Those are the facts. The argument wasn't lost...it is abrogated. And in a country where self government is abrogated the people need to decide what to do about it. I suggest looking to our founders and how they responded to having their voices ignored.

 

[DOTR]

The New Right represents a great threat to our nation's traditions, values and democratic institutions. They have wrapped themselves in the American Flag, and while holding the cross of Christianity, they have soiled everything those symbols represent.

What is "new" is that you don't get to define Christianity, or patriotism, any more. It really doesn't matter if Trump wins or loses. It is the wave Trump rides that is important. He is along for the ride but Trump isn't driving.

 

[Tennyson]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Once again the ignorance of our Constitution is broadcast for the world to read.

Art. 1, sec. 8 clause 1 states in full:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
​

Where in the COTUS is general Welfare defined?

If we are to consider the Preamble to COTUS as a mission/vision statement, the concept of a general Welfare along with a common defence (defense) are a guarantee of protection to each individual citizen of civil rights, not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Thus, the congress via the taxing power can pass legislation to provide cradle to grave protection against disease to each of us, and a guarantee to each citizen that the civil rights (life, liberty, property and happiness) equally to all.

The common defense and general welfare clauses are not grants of power. The grants of powers are enumerated and explicit. The general welfare clause was defined in the debates and writings and came from two articles in the Articles of Confederation, and the meaning and intent did not change with the Constitution.

 

[DOTR]

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?

They can. Well, they can form 7 couples and marry. But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.

What a weird definition. I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision. Which of course will lead to the 14 men in my unit keeping their wives, marrying each other and asking to pay one premium for the family plan insurance.

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?

They can. Well, they can form 7 couples and marry. But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.

What a weird definition. I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision. Which of course will lead to the 14 men in my unit keeping their wives, marrying each other and asking to pay one premium for the family plan insurance.

You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not saying anything against polygamy. In fact, as I have stated numerous times, I am polyamorous. But the law currently is set up for two people. If polygamy is legal, I am all for it.

Now, answer a question for me. Why do you want the gov't involved in marriage at all?

 

[WinterBorn]

It was a bit more than some judges, Hollywood and some billionaires. I have seen polls showing as high as 55% of the population agreed with same sex marriages.

Personally, I don't think the gov't has a place in marriage at all. But if you are going to offer 1,400 federal, state and local benefits for married couples, you should make it open to all couples in love.

And, as far as the "Always", you are leaving out some other conditions that have been applied to marriage. Like requiring that they be the same race.

Your polls are wrong but its a moot point. Polls are to a liberal elitist what The Ten Commandments were to Moses. Enjoy, but we shouldn't be governed by what NBC says the people want.
The liberal is a craven being. He apes Hollywood cebutards, the billionaires and the DC oligarchy. Somehow he finds it brave to stand with power and scream at the serfs.
And the people manifestly didn't want it. The people defeated in their votes time after time. That isn't an arguable statement. When it was put to the people it lost. As in abortion and school prayer and feminism the elites move it eventually to the media, which they control, and to whichever courts they control. No wonder Podesta and billionaire Clinton supporters snicker at the idea of "democracy" in his emails. WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails
I dont care if you want the government in marriage. It is our culture and history and legal system which treats the family differently than the individual. No matter what any individual liberal bemoans that is simply another fact. At no time have our people decided to rise up and overthrow the legal sanction of marriage. We liked it the way it was.
Yes there were always conditions on marriage. Race sometimes, age, degree of kinship, previous marital status, blood tests had to be performed at times. What matter is that? All were intended to strengthen the institution and help preserve the privileged position of a married couple.
In the end the facts are we the people created marriage, wove it into every level of government and refused to bastardize it with homosexuals. And we the people were overturned. I'm not sure there is anything left to argue. Those are the facts. The argument wasn't lost...it is abrogated. And in a country where self government is abrogated the people need to decide what to do about it. I suggest looking to our founders and how they responded to having their voices ignored.

Dismissing the polls is handy. And I never said that the polls mattered. They simply show that your claim of it only being a few judges, the Hollywood elite and some billionaires wanting same sex marriage is bogus.

And the SCOTUS simply applied the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

But why do you care? What effect does the ruling have on you or your marriage?

 

[DOTR]

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

 

[DOTR]

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.

"
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."

 

[DOTR]

Again, because marriage contract law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners only, not three or more.

That three or more persons cannot marry has nothing to do with ‘discrimination,’ it has to do with the fact that marriage contract law is not written to accommodate such a union.

Don't lie. Marriage contract law was written for the union of a man and a woman. Period.

 

[DOTR]

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?

They can. Well, they can form 7 couples and marry. But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.

What a weird definition. I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision. Which of course will lead to the 14 men in my unit keeping their wives, marrying each other and asking to pay one premium for the family plan insurance.

You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not saying anything against polygamy. In fact, as I have stated numerous times, I am polyamorous. But the law currently is set up for two people. If polygamy is legal, I am all for it.

Now, answer a question for me. Why do you want the gov't involved in marriage at all?

Would you like some adderall or Ritalin? I didn't mention polygamy or being polyamorous in my question to you. I asked if you had a reason for opposing the polyamorous union of 14 men.
Doesn't matter why I want the government involved in marriage. It is. By history, culture, precedent and practice and consent of the governed. There is no move yet by liberals (though i expect it) to take marriage from the framework of law.
You can answer the question or move on.

 

[WinterBorn]

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

 

[WinterBorn]

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?

They can. Well, they can form 7 couples and marry. But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.

What a weird definition. I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision. Which of course will lead to the 14 men in my unit keeping their wives, marrying each other and asking to pay one premium for the family plan insurance.

You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not saying anything against polygamy. In fact, as I have stated numerous times, I am polyamorous. But the law currently is set up for two people. If polygamy is legal, I am all for it.

Now, answer a question for me. Why do you want the gov't involved in marriage at all?

Would you like some adderall or Ritalin? I didn't mention polygamy or being polyamorous in my question to you. I asked if you had a reason for opposing the polyamorous union of 14 men.
Doesn't matter why I want the government involved in marriage. It is. By history, culture, precedent and practice and consent of the governed. There is no move yet by liberals (though i expect it) to take marriage from the framework of law.
You can answer the question or move on.

No thanks on the meds. All I need for you to do is remember what you type.

You said "I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings. But you still didn't answer the very simple question. Nor do I expect you to. What I do expect is that when the Supreme Court overturns the bans on plural marriage you will be here explaining why it is such a wonderful decision.".

My response was due to your comment "I think you are a bigot who holds contempt for polyamorous joinings". And, while you didn't mention polygamy by name, you did, in fact, mention plural marriages. What is amusing is that you claim I am a bigot without knowing anything about my beliefs on the topic.

And I believe in smaller gov't which interferes less in our lives. Perhaps you want the gov't involved in the most intimate details. I don't. That is not liberal.

As for my answering your question or moving on, I think I'll keep posting when and where I choose.

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.

"
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."

How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans?? It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.

Once again, why do you care?

 

[Syriusly]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Hmmmm always?

Divorce has been legal for decades if not centuries.

Marriage has been many things in the United States