"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[martybegan]

What does that have to do with gay marriage, though?

Sorry, got my threads crossed, but the point is applicable. Public Accommodation laws are being used to force people to either work at gay weddings as photographers or bakers, or be fined/go out of business. Since one of your items that would make you consider being against it is "going out of business" I thought it was applicable.

I modified my post a bit too.

Can't this situation occur with or without gay marriage being legalized?

with gay marriage legalized you now have equality between gay and straight weddings, therefore denying to work at one while working at another can be considered discrimination (probably only in one direction though, through the concept of a protected class).

 

[KevinWestern]

AS I recall, it was illegal for different races to marry in California until 1947. That being the case, I suspect that many people maintain that it should still be illegal, because it always had been.

The marriage of a black to a white does not change the dynamics of a male to female marriage.

Try to keep up

Yes, Pop but those were dynamics that did change.

Point is that just because something was traditionally considered one thing in the past, doesn't mean it can't change in the future.

Lots of things change. For thousands of years in some areas women couldn't hold positions of power. That was a long standing position within society, but we've seen that change and we're all still here surviving.

I think that's how it would be with gay marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Same sex marriage (in the public setting) really just comes down to whether or not you think people should have the freedom to make freewill decisions that don't directly interfere in a significant way with the freewill of others.

If gay marriage impeded my ability to choose to get straight married, or start a business, or paint, or do anything else I could possibly wish to do, I might be against its establishment. But it doesn't, so I say "who cares"?

June and Ward care a lot. What will become of the Beaver in a world where gays can get married?

Here's what will become of him [Ward and June are correct to object]:

CDC Reports Troubling Rise in HIV Infections Among Young People

Young people aged 13 to 24 made up about 26 percent of all new diagnoses in 2010, even as other demographics have remained relatively stable, according to new information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most young people diagnosed with HIV today contract the disease through sex. For most young men, it’s through sex with other men CDC Reports Troubling Rise in HIV Infections Among Young People | ENDGAME: AIDS in Black America | FRONTLINE | PBS

A sudden sharp spike in youngsters coming down with HIV just in the same years gay marraige has started forcing itself on various states with the help of seditious judges and the media blitz of everything-gay.

I wonder if the formative minds of exploring adolescents combined with undue influences have resulted in the spike in HIV in these boys? Monkey see, monkey do was something Ward and June would've understood. Sometimes wisdom is ageless.

 

[GISMYS]

AS I recall, it was illegal for different races to marry in California until 1947. That being the case, I suspect that many people maintain that it should still be illegal, because it always had been.

The marriage of a black to a white does not change the dynamics of a male to female marriage.

Try to keep up

Yes, Pop but those were dynamics that did change.

Point is that just because something was traditionally considered one thing in the past, doesn't mean it can't change in the future.

Lots of things change. For thousands of years in some areas women couldn't hold positions of power. That was a long standing position within society, but we've seen that change and we're all still here surviving.

I think that's how it would be with gay marriage.

GOD,GOD'S WORD,TRUTH do not change!!!

 

[KevinWestern]

with gay marriage legalized you now have equality between gay and straight weddings, therefore denying to work at one while working at another can be considered discrimination (probably only in one direction though, through the concept of a protected class).

Honestly Marty, in cases where people make cakes, take photos - highly specialized and time consuming activities where you must intimately get to know your customers - I'm fine with them refusing business. Really, I say "whatever".

But honestly - Marty - my point was more along the lines of starting a business, perusing one's dreams, making money, day to day operations; is gay marriage really going to "CHANGE" all that in a significant way?

I think it's rational to think no, it won't.

 

[Katzndogz]

Jesus did not Condone Sin... You know this... Go forth and Sin no more... Adultery and Homosexuality are Sins... Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus change that Fact.
.

My point was, if a gay minister was more effective at teaching people to love one another that should - in my view - hold more precedence over the fact "he is gay".

A"minister" living as a homosexual will not be in heaven.

That's not your judgment to make. The Bible tells you over and over that you are not to judge the sin of another. Only yourself. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then your obligation is not to accept it as normal behavior, for yourself.

 

[GISMYS]

with gay marriage legalized you now have equality between gay and straight weddings, therefore denying to work at one while working at another can be considered discrimination (probably only in one direction though, through the concept of a protected class).

Honestly Marty, in cases where people make cakes, take photos - highly specialized and time consuming activities where you must intimately get to know your customers - I'm fine with them refusing business. Really, I say "whatever".

But honestly - Marty - my point was more along the lines of starting a business, perusing one's dreams, making money, day to day operations; is gay marriage really going to "CHANGE" all that in a significant way?

I think it's rational to think no, it won't.

SICK sexual perverts think ther pet sin is not sin,DREAM ON!! YOU TRY TO DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD!!!

 

[Silhouette]

SICK sexual perverts think ther pet sin is not sin,DREAM ON!! YOU TRY TO DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD!!!

...said the fake bible-thumper hired by the lavender mafia to make the opposition look crazy...

GISMYS, do you get health benefits, dental and retirement too?

 

[GISMYS]

GOD=is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 1:26-32== Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. There was a time when some of you were just like that but now your sins are washed away, and you are set apart for God; and he has accepted you because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
1 corinthians 6:9 ==If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. leviticus 20:13

 

[Vandalshandle]

AS I recall, it was illegal for different races to marry in California until 1947. That being the case, I suspect that many people maintain that it should still be illegal, because it always had been.

The marriage of a black to a white does not change the dynamics of a male to female marriage.

Try to keep up

Yes, Pop but those were dynamics that did change.

Point is that just because something was traditionally considered one thing in the past, doesn't mean it can't change in the future.

Lots of things change. For thousands of years in some areas women couldn't hold positions of power. That was a long standing position within society, but we've seen that change and we're all still here surviving.

I think that's how it would be with gay marriage.

Kevin,

You would think that one would not have to explain this to Pop, but....well.....

 

[emilynghiem]

I agree with the neutral policy to keep govt only in charge of civil contracts.

And leave marriage to churches and private choices.
Problem solved!

If ppl are going to redefine marriage,
why not redefine who is spiritually the man or the woman?

Let one of the partners register as a man (or woman)
and they can get married legally without changing laws and definitions for other people.

Put the burden on the couple, not the govt or public to redefine the relationship.

Otherwise keep civil unions or domestic partnerships gender neutral
just like a business contract that treats the people as equal parties
though they may agree to different roles.

 

[martybegan]

with gay marriage legalized you now have equality between gay and straight weddings, therefore denying to work at one while working at another can be considered discrimination (probably only in one direction though, through the concept of a protected class).

Honestly Marty, in cases where people make cakes, take photos - highly specialized and time consuming activities where you must intimately get to know your customers - I'm fine with them refusing business. Really, I say "whatever".

But honestly - Marty - my point was more along the lines of starting a business, perusing one's dreams, making money, day to day operations; is gay marriage really going to "CHANGE" all that in a significant way?

I think it's rational to think no, it won't.

It did with the photographer's Business.

 

[Flopper]

The answer lies in the above quote, "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." This is not true for multi-partner marriage, brother sister marriage, child marriage, and marriage to animals.

The word "marriage" means "a man to a woman". That is the meaning of the word. Gays are seeking to fundamentally eradicate that meaning, affecting langauge itself. Marriage is about mothers and fathers. Women and men. It has NEVER been about anything else since the dawn of time. That is because you must have a man and a woman to beget natural children. Natural children born to their natural parents have the highest success rate, statistically speaking, of any child to a well-adjused life. That is because even in the animal kingdom and humans as well, the instinctive recognition and drive to protect and promote one's own blood kin is fierce compared to other arrangments such as adoption. Sorry, adoption is always a second choice to natural children.

In any gay arrangement, one of the two "parents" [no daddy or no mommy] is not blood related to the child. Always. So that halves the child's statistical chances of thriving well.

Why aren't brother/sister marriages allowed? If they are both adults and consenting? Why aren't polylgamists allowed to marry, if they are all adults and consenting? Sure it's weird what they do. But so is gay sex. Just because you fall lin love with someone and are humping them, does NOT guarantee you the right to play at "mom and dad" to children as "married".

The meaning of words change. The law has changed the meaning of many worlds such torture, obscene, divorce, rape, harassment, and militia. Husband originally had nothing to do with marital status at all; it designated manager or steward or head of household. The fact that the meaning of the word marriage will change in the dictionary is not reason to deny marriage to same sex couples.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Same sex marriage (in the public setting) really just comes down to whether or not you think people should have the freedom to make freewill decisions that don't directly interfere in a significant way with the freewill of others.

If gay marriage impeded my ability to choose to get straight married, or start a business, or paint, or do anything else I could possibly wish to do, I might be against its establishment. But it doesn't, so I say "who cares"?

June and Ward care a lot. What will become of the Beaver in a world where gays can get married?

Here's what will become of him [Ward and June are correct to object]:

CDC Reports Troubling Rise in HIV Infections Among Young People

Young people aged 13 to 24 made up about 26 percent of all new diagnoses in 2010, even as other demographics have remained relatively stable, according to new information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most young people diagnosed with HIV today contract the disease through sex. For most young men, it’s through sex with other men CDC Reports Troubling Rise in HIV Infections Among Young People | ENDGAME: AIDS in Black America | FRONTLINE | PBS

A sudden sharp spike in youngsters coming down with HIV just in the same years gay marraige has started forcing itself on various states with the help of seditious judges and the media blitz of everything-gay.

I wonder if the formative minds of exploring adolescents combined with undue influences have resulted in the spike in HIV in these boys? Monkey see, monkey do was something Ward and June would've understood. Sometimes wisdom is ageless.

So, your position is that married gays spread AIDS more than single gays?

 

[Flopper]

I agree with the neutral policy to keep govt only in charge of civil contracts.

And leave marriage to churches and private choices.
Problem solved!

If ppl are going to redefine marriage,
why not redefine who is spiritually the man or the woman?

Let one of the partners register as a man (or woman)
and they can get married legally without changing laws and definitions for other people.

Put the burden on the couple, not the govt or public to redefine the relationship.

Otherwise keep civil unions or domestic partnerships gender neutral
just like a business contract that treats the people as equal parties
though they may agree to different roles.

Marriage is a civil contract. It may have religious meanings but in a court of law it's simply legal contract.

 

[Pop23]

AS I recall, it was illegal for different races to marry in California until 1947. That being the case, I suspect that many people maintain that it should still be illegal, because it always had been.

The marriage of a black to a white does not change the dynamics of a male to female marriage.

Try to keep up

Yes, Pop but those were dynamics that did change.

Point is that just because something was traditionally considered one thing in the past, doesn't mean it can't change in the future.

Lots of things change. For thousands of years in some areas women couldn't hold positions of power. That was a long standing position within society, but we've seen that change and we're all still here surviving.

I think that's how it would be with gay marriage.

How has the dynamic of pregnancy through intercourse ever change?

The only change was that a Manmade law made it illegal for a male to marry a female. Nothing else.

A black man impregnating a white women still includes the threat of the women's life. Does not matter the race of the participants, the dynamic only found in male/ female intercourse remains the same.

So remind me how this even remotely is related to same sex marriage? Does same sex marriage need order? If so, why? No need for an orderly bloodline when the participants in question don't breed.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is a civil contract. It may have religious meanings but in a court of law it's simply legal contract.

The US Supreme Court disagrees:

[Windsor 2013]

Page 19

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits...

Page 20

...It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning... United States v. Windsor

 

[Vandalshandle]

"How has the dynamic of pregnancy through intercourse ever change?"

The dynamics of pregnancy through intercourse changes with menopause.

Consequently, there seems to be no point in remaining married past that point....I guess....

 

[DGS49]

Abe Lincoln's riddle: If I call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: Four. Just because I call a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

If marriage means "anything anyone wants it to mean," then, sure man&man or woman&woman is a marriage. But that's just pretending that the word doesn't mean what it has always meant.

 

[Pop23]

"How has the dynamic of pregnancy through intercourse ever change?"

The dynamics of pregnancy through intercourse changes with menopause.

Consequently, there seems to be no point in remaining married past that point....I guess....

You deflect.

Did "loving" do anything more than make it legal for men to marry women and for women to marry men?

And to do so in and orderly pursuit of happiness.

Again, remind me how this applies to same sex marriage?