If gay marriage is legal...let's get rid of ALL legal marriage....

[Papageorgio]

Tell that to a goose that just lost a lifetime mate.

Where's their marriage license?

You dont need a license to be married.

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's to get the benefits of marriage, not to be married.

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

 

[Seawytch]

Where's their marriage license?

You dont need a license to be married.

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's to get the benefits of marriage, not to be married.

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

 

[The Rabbi]

Where's their marriage license?

You dont need a license to be married.

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's why you need to abolish marriage by the state and treat everyone equally.

Why should we do that? Everyone is equal. Anyone can get married to someone of the opposite sex. There are no special rules for gay people, except in those states where there are.

And yet, in your third world state, my wife and I are not legally protected if something happened to one of us.

You have the same protections as any other two people merely living together.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah let's unleash chaos on society! **** yeah!
No that isnt happening.

Mark this on your calendars everyone...


..................... I agree.



>>>>

You probably dont.
I am ridiculing your suggestions. Leaving women with no source of income on which to raise kids, especialy after perhaps they sacrificed and struggled to put their husbands through medical school etc, just isnt going to happen and isnt right anyway.
Getting government out of marriage is a bumper sticker slogan for the narco-libertarian crowd. Nothing more.

Women are more and more having children out of wedlock. Should this be forced to marry to avoid poverty?

As for the children, the father should be forced to take care of the children financially. I still don't get your point.

Thats totally illogical. Yes your last sentence is true.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

then lets have a referendum in every state, lets have a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it.

OK? let the people speak, you say its a done deal so why not have the vote and end the debate?

But you won't agree to that will you? Because deep down inside even you know that you would lose if the will of the people was allowed to prevail.

Yeah Fishy...you work on that National Referendum thing you want and gays will keep getting married.

If your National Referendum voted to ban handguns and assault rifles, you'd be okay with that? How about if your National Referendum voted to increase taxes on the rich?

Get on it Fishy, I think it would be great!

Yes, I would accept the will of the majority on any of those issues. But the second amendment could only be changed by constitutional amendment with ratification by 38 states. Exactly the same procedure that should be used on gay marriage.

Tax rates are established by congress, congressmen are elected by a majority of the people they represent------------in the USA we decide things by majority vote--------ALL THINGS.

The constitution and its amendments were put in place by majority votes----not minority dictates.

Minority rights were established by majority vote.

So...get on that Constitutional Amendment to restrict gay marriage then.

That's argument #2 of your two arguments for gay marriage. They can be summarized as follows:

Argument #1: Gays are really black people in the American South c.1962.
Now, I have never seen gay people forced to attend certain schools, barred from office, lynched by mobs, subject to literacy tests etc etc. But that's argument 1

Argument #2: We've managed to get a few judges, some of them gay themselves, to buy into Argumnt 1 so that means we're right.

Every post of yours is one or the other of these.

 

[The Rabbi]

You dont need a license to be married.

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's to get the benefits of marriage, not to be married.

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

 

[bodecea]

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

then lets have a referendum in every state, lets have a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it.

OK? let the people speak, you say its a done deal so why not have the vote and end the debate?

But you won't agree to that will you? Because deep down inside even you know that you would lose if the will of the people was allowed to prevail.

Yeah Fishy...you work on that National Referendum thing you want and gays will keep getting married.

If your National Referendum voted to ban handguns and assault rifles, you'd be okay with that? How about if your National Referendum voted to increase taxes on the rich?

Get on it Fishy, I think it would be great!

Yes, I would accept the will of the majority on any of those issues. But the second amendment could only be changed by constitutional amendment with ratification by 38 states. Exactly the same procedure that should be used on gay marriage.

Tax rates are established by congress, congressmen are elected by a majority of the people they represent------------in the USA we decide things by majority vote--------ALL THINGS.

The constitution and its amendments were put in place by majority votes----not minority dictates.

Minority rights were established by majority vote.

So...get on that Constitutional Amendment to restrict gay marriage then.

That's argument #2 of your two arguments for gay marriage. They can be summarized as follows:

Argument #1: Gays are really black people in the American South c.1962.
Now, I have never seen gay people forced to attend certain schools, barred from office, lynched by mobs, subject to literacy tests etc etc. But that's argument 1

Argument #2: We've managed to get a few judges, some of them gay themselves, to buy into Argumnt 1 so that means we're right.

Every post of yours is one or the other of these.

No one seems to be saying that gays are black people except for people like you. However, civil rights are for Americans...not just based on race like you seem to think it is. But that's not new either...Misogynists had problems with the Women's Rights movement in the 70s too.

 

[The Rabbi]

then lets have a referendum in every state, lets have a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it.

OK? let the people speak, you say its a done deal so why not have the vote and end the debate?

But you won't agree to that will you? Because deep down inside even you know that you would lose if the will of the people was allowed to prevail.

Yeah Fishy...you work on that National Referendum thing you want and gays will keep getting married.

If your National Referendum voted to ban handguns and assault rifles, you'd be okay with that? How about if your National Referendum voted to increase taxes on the rich?

Get on it Fishy, I think it would be great!

Yes, I would accept the will of the majority on any of those issues. But the second amendment could only be changed by constitutional amendment with ratification by 38 states. Exactly the same procedure that should be used on gay marriage.

Tax rates are established by congress, congressmen are elected by a majority of the people they represent------------in the USA we decide things by majority vote--------ALL THINGS.

The constitution and its amendments were put in place by majority votes----not minority dictates.

Minority rights were established by majority vote.

So...get on that Constitutional Amendment to restrict gay marriage then.

That's argument #2 of your two arguments for gay marriage. They can be summarized as follows:

Argument #1: Gays are really black people in the American South c.1962.
Now, I have never seen gay people forced to attend certain schools, barred from office, lynched by mobs, subject to literacy tests etc etc. But that's argument 1

Argument #2: We've managed to get a few judges, some of them gay themselves, to buy into Argumnt 1 so that means we're right.

Every post of yours is one or the other of these.

No one seems to be saying that gays are black people except for people like you. However, civil rights are for Americans...not just based on race like you seem to think it is. But that's not new either...Misogynists had problems with the Women's Rights movement in the 70s too.

Argument 1

 

[Seawytch]

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's to get the benefits of marriage, not to be married.

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

 

[Jarhead]

That's to get the benefits of marriage, not to be married.

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's to get the benefits of marriage, not to be married.

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

Even straights are prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choie if that adult is of the same sex.
No discrimination here.

 

[bodecea]

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

Even straights are prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choie if that adult is of the same sex.
No discrimination here.

So...you admit it's gender discrimination.

 

[bodecea]

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

 

[The Rabbi]

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

Even straights are prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choie if that adult is of the same sex.
No discrimination here.

So...you admit it's gender discrimination.

Nope. Men can marry women, women can marry men. No discrimination at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Happens all the time.
Are you suggesting being attracted is a criterion for a legal marriage?

 

[bodecea]

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

Even straights are prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choie if that adult is of the same sex.
No discrimination here.

So...you admit it's gender discrimination.

Nope. Men can marry women, women can marry men. No discrimination at all.

So you are encouraging people to be cut off legally from those fellow, law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adults who they are attracted to...................why?

 

[bodecea]

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Happens all the time.
Are you suggesting being attracted is a criterion for a legal marriage?

Are you suggesting it is not?

 

[The Rabbi]

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

Even straights are prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choie if that adult is of the same sex.
No discrimination here.

So...you admit it's gender discrimination.

Nope. Men can marry women, women can marry men. No discrimination at all.

So you are encouraging people to be cut off legally from those fellow, law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adults who they are attracted to...................why?

Nope. They can have the same legal relationship as any other two fellow law abiding tax paying consenting adults they are attracted to but not married to.
What about this is difficult?

 

[The Rabbi]

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Happens all the time.
Are you suggesting being attracted is a criterion for a legal marriage?

Are you suggesting it is not?

I am stating as fact that there exists no legal requirement to be attracted to someone before you marry them.

 

[Jarhead]

What about people that choose not to marry? They are penalized by the government for not marrying, that is wrong, single people have a higher tax burden.

They are not, however, prevented from marrying. If I don't buy a house I'm "penalized". If I don't have children, I'm "penalized". You a "flat tax" guy?

WHo is preventing you from marrying? Name him.
Nothing prevents you from buying a house.
Nothing prevents you from becoming a farmer
Nothing prevents you from having children.

Nope...and nobody prevents the single person from marrying. You just reiterated my point.

Gays are still prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice in about a half dozen states...but not for long.

you know my position...but that being said, your argument is filled with holes....

No one is preventing you from marrying a man...it is a decision you make.....just as no one is preventing a single person from marrying anyone....it is a decision they make.

Why should her (and my) marriage choice be LEGALLY limited to the half of the adult law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry that we are NOT attracted to. Are you suggesting that people should marry those we are not attracted to.

Nope. Did not say that.
I simply showed her that her argument has holes. What if a single person finds no one attractive...or better yet, what if no one finds themselves attracted to that person? Is it fair that that person who wants to get married can not and therefore does not get the benefit of marriage?

Your argument is a simple one....Gays exist all over the world and have since the beginning of time. Whereas they may be a minority of the population, so are people that grow taller than 6'5"......therefore they are to be deemed as equal to all others and enjoy the rights of all others.

The rest of the crap you and seawytch are spewing is....well.....crap...and to be frank, I find it discriminatory on your part.

Do you truly you feel you should be afforded legal advantages over someone who can not find someone to marry them?