Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[elektra]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

The marriage contract they enter into is not different, however; the law is the same regardless the gender configuration. Marriage is two consenting adult partners participating in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Yes I understand you want to call all things homosexual anything but homosexual.

The only way the Homosexuals win, is by changing the meaning of words, by not using any word that describes who they are, by killing any speech that speaks the truth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

The marriage contract they enter into is not different, however; the law is the same regardless the gender configuration. Marriage is two consenting adult partners participating in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Yes I understand you want to call all things homosexual anything but homosexual.

The only way the Homosexuals win, is by changing the meaning of words, by not using any word that describes who they are, by killing any speech that speaks the truth.

That you perceive the issue in terms of 'winning' and losing' is both sad and telling.

Everyone 'wins' when all Americans are afforded their comprehensive civil liberties.

 

[Kondor3]

Perversion is perversion, no matter what the phukking courts call it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Perversion is perversion, no matter what the phukking courts call it.

Your ignorance, fear, and hate are noted, along with your contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The perversions of fear and hatred and demagoguery from the far right are disturbing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Far more children are abused by "religious" adults than atheists.

 

[Kondor3]

Perversion is perversion, no matter what the phukking courts call it.

Your ignorance, fear, and hate are noted, along with your contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

Your insistence upon labeling opposition viewpoints (traditional religious ones, no less) as 'ignorance', 'fear' and 'hate' are noted, in counterpoint.

Also, I have the greatest respect for the Constitution, case law, and the rule of law.

Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man.

It is only the weakening of social mores in The West and a hyper-extension of the admirable principle of egalitarianism to accommodate the perverse, and subsequent sheeple-caliber go-with-the-flow judicial activism, that have empowered homosexual behaviors to the extent accommodated in our present age.

Homosexuality is wrong.

The courts have it wrong.

But, like so many others who stand in opposition to it, I will abide by the law, until the law can be changed and coerced to overthrow this perversity.

That, too, is respect for the Constitution, its case law, and the Rule of Law.

Slipping into Attack Dog mode at the slightest hint of opposition is a well-known tactic of the LGBT political machine.

Come January 20, 2017, the nation may be fortunate enough to find a leader capable of reversing this most unfortunate, unhealthy, and unclean trend, in favor of homosexuals.

Most of your opposition is actually fairly well-informed, courageous enough to take your brickbats, and filled with pity and loathing for homosexual behaviors and their practitioners; the polar opposite of ignorance, fear and hate.

But do continue to perceive the Opposition in that vein.

That will make the eventual (and inevitable) take-down all the easier, and all the sweeter.

 

[TooTall]

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Far more children are abused by "religious" adults than atheists.

I didn't say atheists abused children. I merely asked if immoral atheists would give a shit and support it. And, a religious person would not abuse a child. A "religious" person might.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Kondor3 said:

“Homosexuality is wrong.

The courts have it wrong.”


And you are wrong.

As a fact of law homosexuality is not 'wrong,' as a fact of law the courts are correct.

You are of course at liberty to believe homosexuality is 'wrong' in the errant, subjective context of your ignorance, fear, and hate – but as a matter of the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law you are indeed wrong.

Moreover, this has nothing to do with 'labeling,' it has to do with those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples failing to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of the states denying same-sex couples their civil liberties. Absent any objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples their civil liberties, the only motive remaining is unwarranted animus toward homosexual persons, a desire to disadvantage them legally, and to make them different from everyone else – solely because of who they are.

Consequently, laws seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Far more children are abused by "religious" adults than atheists.

I didn't say atheists abused children. I merely asked if immoral atheists would give a shit and support it. And, a religious person would not abuse a child. A "religious" person might.

You certainly implied it. You do not have the integrity to stand squarely for what you believe. Cultsmasher in that sense could teach you how to talk the talk. You are despicable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slipping into Attack Dog mode at the slightest hint of opposition is a well-known tactic of the far right reactionary thug machine.

 

[Kondor3]

Kondor3 said:

“Homosexuality is wrong.

The courts have it wrong.”


And you are wrong.

As a fact of law homosexuality is not 'wrong,' as a fact of law the courts are correct...

Oh, nolo contendre - no contest - the courts did, indeed, do what they were obliged to do, given the present state of the law.

It's just that their predecessors found ways to circumvent those same challenges, earlier, while our current crop of jurists chose not to.

Pity.

Still, if the courts require a condemnatory stance against homosexuality, in a legal framework, the Opposition may be able to construct such a mechanism in future.

...You are of course at liberty to believe homosexuality is 'wrong' in the errant, subjective context of your ignorance, fear, and hate...

There is nothing errant, subjective, ignorant, fearful nor hateful about perceiving homosexuality as 'wrong'.

It merely contradicts your (you, apparently, and those who perceive it the same way you do) position, so, it is in your best interests, and the advancement of the LGBT agenda, to attempt to portray critics in such a light, and to attempt to discredit their opinion, by any means, fair or foul - including knee-jerk attack-dog tactics and name-calling, etc.

...but as a matter of the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law you are indeed wrong...

Perhaps... then again, perhaps not.

The Constitution, and, indeed, all subordinate law, is, first and foremost, a matter of interpretation.

Today's interpretations can easily be overthrown by a subsequent interpretation in future.

Such a thing has happened many times over the past 230 -odd years of our Republic's existence.

...Moreover, this has nothing to do with 'labeling,' it has to do with those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples failing to provide any objective, documented evidence in support of the states denying same-sex couples their civil liberties. Absent any objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples their civil liberties, the only motive remaining is unwarranted animus toward homosexual persons, a desire to disadvantage them legally, and to make them different from everyone else – solely because of who they are...

The animus is not unwarranted.

Their critics believe them to be wrong - filthy, unclean aberrations and abominations.

...Consequently, laws seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are being appropriately invalidated by the courts.

One angle would be to find homosexuality to be harmful to the Republic and its citizens in some manner or another.

Once (and if) accomplished, the law can be made to work against such a danger, with the well-being of society overriding any previously-accommodated individual concerns.

Whether that ever actually materializes or not is another matter, but every new Administration and its SCOTUS appointees will have input into future legal dealings with this perversity.

What tickles the hell out of me is the arrogance of the LGBT community in perceiving that the battle is over and that the war has been won.

Frankly, I get the impression that this is just beginning, and that it could drag on for years, or decades, before the dust actually settles.

But, that's where I pack-away my crystal ball, because anything is possible in the future.

 

[Boss]

The only people being "denied" something, are sexual deviants who want to change marriage so as to include their sexual deviancy. Under any current law of any state, a homosexual can obtain the same exact marriage license as a straight person, in fact, they will not even ask if you are a homosexual. So there is nothing being denied to homosexuals except the right to change and modify marriage to include their sexual behavior.

I am a Constitutionalist, I believe in the Constitution. When it says that we cannot afford certain rights to one group of people without affording those rights to all other groups, I believe that is fundamental "equal protection" and our obligation under the Constitution. Therefore, if marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, it also has to include pedophiles, people who **** animals, polygamists, necrophiliacs, or any other sexual proclivity who wishes to have their deviancy legitimized under the law. There is no slippery slope, the slope has been removed entirely. It's now just a bottomless drop into the immoral abyss... no slope... no slipping.

Now, instead of opening up this can of immoral worms that no one is going to want to deal with in the future, instead of insisting that government protect and sanction a sexual lifestyle which it will constitutionally have to protect for all sexual lifestyles, why not simply change how government deals with domestic relationships? Adopt a reform to comprehensive civil unions, where the government only recognizes a universal 2-party contract and not "marriage" at all.

Nope...not good enough for those who push for gay marriage. You see, this isn't about gay couples getting rights being denied at all. It is a radical leftist attempt to destroy the moral underpinnings of society. To take a big steamy dump on the Church and religious sanctity of marriage. THAT is what they are after, THAT is what they want.

 

[Czernobog]

Only an idiot thinks that a loving, committed relationship is anything other than a loving committed relationship based solely on the gender of the people involved.

A marriage is a marriage. So, call it what it is.

Only a tyrant dictates that homosexuals be called the same name we call heterosexuals.

Nobody is saying anything about what you call homosexuals. However, a marriage is a marriage. That isn't tyranny; it's fact.

I can not use the term, "homosexual", in a discussion about homosexuals?

There you have it, homosexual activists must prevent people from speaking the truth.

What are you babbling about? Who told you you can't use the term homosexual?

Sorry, your last post was a bit incoherent, what was your intent in denigrating my use of the term, homosexual.

No. My intent was to ridicule your laughable claim that you are not being allowed to use the term homosexual. The part that made it so funny was that you did that while using the term homosexual!

 

[initforme]

Its none of my business what two consenting adults do. If you believe in less gov't then gay marriage is a non issue for you. As a married with children heterosexual man how does gay marriage threaten me? Answer? It doesn't. Take a look at the greed on wall St and what happens there... talk about immoral

 

[dilloduck]

It is important to the Right that gays not be given the right to marry, because it would add lesbians and gays to other groups that they can no longer feel superior to, like African-Americans, women, atheists, citizens that don't speak English (but have the same rights as they do), etc., etc.

How silly. It's simple to find someone to feel superior too. Ask any liberal. They feel superior to every right winger that ever existed.

It isn't a matter of "feel".

Well tell Mr Handle that---they were his words.

 

[dilloduck]

Its none of my business what two consenting adults do. If you believe in less gov't then gay marriage is a non issue for you. As a married with children heterosexual man how does gay marriage threaten me? Answer? It doesn't. Take a look at the greed on wall St and what happens there... talk about immoral

Seriously-----and the actions of politicians make the concept of plural marriages tame

 

[TooTall]

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Far more children are abused by "religious" adults than atheists.

I didn't say atheists abused children. I merely asked if immoral atheists would give a shit and support it. And, a religious person would not abuse a child. A "religious" person might.

You certainly implied it. You do not have the integrity to stand squarely for what you believe. Cultsmasher in that sense could teach you how to talk the talk. You are despicable.

I didn't impy anything dipshit. I merely suggested that an immoral atheist that doesn't give a shit about same sex marriage and polygamy and incest and still supports them probably supports child abuse.

Do you support all of the above, and I don't have a problem stating that I do not. I consider them immoral, depraved, perverted and disgusting. Is that square enough for you?

 

[JoeB131]

I am a Constitutionalist, I believe in the Constitution. When it says that we cannot afford certain rights to one group of people without affording those rights to all other groups, I believe that is fundamental "equal protection" and our obligation under the Constitution. Therefore, if marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, it also has to include pedophiles, people who **** animals, polygamists, necrophiliacs, or any other sexual proclivity who wishes to have their deviancy legitimized under the law. There is no slippery slope, the slope has been removed entirely. It's now just a bottomless drop into the immoral abyss... no slope... no slipping.

Wow, this has to be the dumbest thing you've said yet.

Okay, let's look at what a marriage is- a legal contract between two adults to form a family. this requires two adults capable of making an agreement and accepting responsibilities.

So pedophiles can't have marriages because children can't knowingly consent under the law.
Animals can't consent under the law, as they aren't self-aware.
Corpses can't consent because they aren't alive to consent.

So really, that only leaves "Polygamists". And while I have no problem with polygamy if everyone involved is a consenting adult, the reality is that we don't allow people to make a marriage contract if they already have one with someone else.

Nope...not good enough for those who push for gay marriage. You see, this isn't about gay couples getting rights being denied at all. It is a radical leftist attempt to destroy the moral underpinnings of society. To take a big steamy dump on the Church and religious sanctity of marriage. THAT is what they are after, THAT is what they want.

If you were truly a "constitutionalist", you'd know the Church has no say in the constitutionality of the issue. The constitution clearly spells out that the government has nothing to do with the church or vice-versa.

Some churches were performing gay marriages before they were legal. Others never will.

And I don't think that the moral underpinnings of society are based on a bunch of hucksters telling people there's an imaginary fairy in the sky worried about what kind of sex they are having.

 

[Boss]

Its none of my business what two consenting adults do. If you believe in less gov't then gay marriage is a non issue for you. As a married with children heterosexual man how does gay marriage threaten me? Answer? It doesn't. Take a look at the greed on wall St and what happens there... talk about immoral

But it DOES affect you, it affects us all. We have to live in the society we create. It's none of my business what two consenting adults do, but that doesn't mean it's none of my business what government sanctions.

And what the hell do you want to do about Wall Street? Shut it down and ban capitalism? Ordain a dictator who will decide what we'll pay for shit and if we can even have it? Because that is the alternative to Wall Street and free market capitalism.... problem is, it has never worked out very well for the masses.