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

[Pop23]

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.

Holding a state issued license to drive a car is not discrimination because you can't legally fly a jet with it.

 

[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....

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?

If you are talking about a Supreme Court decision, and I assume that you are, I do not pretend to be a lawyer. However, I do know that 17 states allow gay marriage, which is a pretty strong argument that the Supreme Court has not ruled it unconstitutional. To paraphrase Dylan, "You don't need a shingle to know what the law is".

 

[bendog]

"Christian moral compass"? What the **** does that even mean? The Vatican runs a global child sex racket. Is that traditional Christian morality?

What did Jesus say about the morality of homosexuals?

Western culture is basically Christian culture....Christianity has had the greatest civilizing influence in the history of man...in philosophy, art, and science...and just about everything else...our country and its Constitution was founded in the context of Christian belief...

maybe they don't teach that fact in the schools anymore...

If that was anywhere near true then why did the Christian founders make the very first law a prohibition of any religion from taking over the nation's laws?

Well, Clement tried to short track the discussion yesterday, but if you look back to the conflicts between the Pilgrims and Puritans, and then the effects of Roger Williams and then Penn on relations amongst the colonies ...... essentially much of immigration to America was of people seeking to escape persecution by the Church of England (forefather of the Episcopalians) and other European states. So, when the BoR was being drafted, the Founders feared a state religion would be intolerant and force others to convert, and at the time the Episcopal Church was predominat. (Although a good % of priests had been Tories and thus were ethnically cleansed to the Caribbean, Canada, or heaven.)

 

[Seawytch]

Currently that is the problem, worst its being used ex post facto to put people out of business if they refuse to cater to gay couples.

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

Meaning, can't a gay guy who's not getting married ask for a non-legal "union cake" between him and his partner and the same scenario would ensue?

And in the case of that guy perusing the business, I wouldn't have sided with him. Kind of thought that was mean-spirited. But there are mean spirited gay, straight, people of all sorts.

The public accommodation lawsuits have been occurring in states without marriage equality. They are unrelated.

 

[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?

If you are talking about a Supreme Court decision, and I assume that you are, I do not pretend to be a lawyer. However, I do know that 17 states allow gay marriage, which is a pretty strong argument that the Supreme Court has not ruled it unconstitutional. To paraphrase Dylan, "You don't need a shingle to know what the law is".

And 33 have not. I've stated before that your side has won the battle but the war wages on

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Homosexual 'marriage' ??? Comical

 

[Seawytch]

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?

If you are talking about a Supreme Court decision, and I assume that you are, I do not pretend to be a lawyer. However, I do know that 17 states allow gay marriage, which is a pretty strong argument that the Supreme Court has not ruled it unconstitutional. To paraphrase Dylan, "You don't need a shingle to know what the law is".

And 33 have not. I've stated before that your side has won the battle but the war wages on

How many states still had interracial marriage laws on the books when Loving was ruled on?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Yep, just a few years ago the lefts heroes were all bigots and haters.

 

[Pop23]

If you are talking about a Supreme Court decision, and I assume that you are, I do not pretend to be a lawyer. However, I do know that 17 states allow gay marriage, which is a pretty strong argument that the Supreme Court has not ruled it unconstitutional. To paraphrase Dylan, "You don't need a shingle to know what the law is".

And 33 have not. I've stated before that your side has won the battle but the war wages on

How many states still had interracial marriage laws on the books when Loving was ruled on?

Don't know, don't care. "Loving" allowing any male to marry any female (incest etc. excluded) is what's important. You have that right as well

Now how is that got anything to do with men marrying men.

 

[Howey]

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

I think we finally figured out your problem.

If you really think a fictionalized fairy tale of Ward and June and Wally and Beaver is an accurate description of the American family and life in the 1950's - or today - then it's obvious you are posting, or should be posting, from an asylum.

 

[KevinWestern]

It did with the photographer's Business.

Marty - honestly your theory isn't really aligning with the reality of things. As far as I know, only two cases really caught wind:

1.) A cake maker refusing service to a gay couple in Colorado
2.) A photographer refusing service to a gay couple in Arizona

First of all, this is two cases out of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of businesses in the United States, and the billions of interactions they have with customers each year. I mean, you're probably more likely getting struck 20 times by lightning next week than know a business owner who's been "personally affected financially" by one of these cases. It's an extremely, extremely rare occurrence.

Secondly, both events happened in states where gay marriage was banned! Had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage being legal.

I don't think your business argument is resting on solid ground. But I'm open for discussion.

 

[Seawytch]

And 33 have not. I've stated before that your side has won the battle but the war wages on

How many states still had interracial marriage laws on the books when Loving was ruled on?

Don't know, don't care. "Loving" allowing any male to marry any female (incest etc. excluded) is what's important. You have that right as well



Now how is that got anything to do with men marrying men.

The 14th amendment has everything to do with both (as Federal Judge after Federal Judge have been ruling)

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

I think we finally figured out your problem.

If you really think a fictionalized fairy tale of Ward and June and Wally and Beaver is an accurate description of the American family and life in the 1950's - or today - then it's obvious you are posting, or should be posting, from an asylum.

Turn your sarcasm detector on, Howey....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And 33 have not. I've stated before that your side has won the battle but the war wages on

How many states still had interracial marriage laws on the books when Loving was ruled on?

Don't know, don't care. "Loving" allowing any male to marry any female (incest etc. excluded) is what's important. You have that right as well

Now how is that got anything to do with men marrying men.

It has everything to do with it, as it’s part of the same 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same as opposite sex couples. To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional, just as it is un-Constitutional to deny an interracial couple access to marriage law they are also eligible to enter into.

 

[Howey]

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

I think we finally figured out your problem.

If you really think a fictionalized fairy tale of Ward and June and Wally and Beaver is an accurate description of the American family and life in the 1950's - or today - then it's obvious you are posting, or should be posting, from an asylum.

Turn your sarcasm detector on, Howey....

Oh...it's on 24/7. But in the case of Gizmo, I honestly believe he thinks it.

 

[Steinlight]

 

[Wake]

The point is that there is distinct and utter hypocrisy among some Liberals. Welcome to politics.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Actually not.

Whatever happened to the New Mexico photographer was solely the responsibility of the business owner, having nothing to do with New Mexico’s public accommodations laws, which were determined to be proper, appropriate, and Constitutional.

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory policy, and business owners are not in a position to decide what laws and policies they’ll obey and what laws and policies they’ll ignore. It is simply the nature of conducting business today, where business owners need to conduct themselves as responsible professionals, and accommodate the customers who seek their goods and services in a responsible, professional manner.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So when the Bible talks about this man or that man having 5 wives or a 100 wives, which definition of marriage was that?

Was that one of the definitions of marriage that cannot be changed, lest we commit some sort of grievous crime of 'redefining' marriage?

 

[Steinlight]

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.

So when the Bible talks about this man or that man having 5 wives or a 100 wives, which definition of marriage was that?

Was that one of the definitions of marriage that cannot be changed, lest we commit some sort of grievous crime of 'redefining' marriage?

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...