Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Pop23]

“Homosexuality by nature is debauchery, fulfilling lustful and dark desires of the flesh without regard for eternity.”

As already noted, this is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – indeed, this is an example of the ignorance and hate that the Constitution prohibits from being codified.

Geez Clayton, then you can't argue against father/daughter marriage.

Reality fails you

 

[rightwinger]

Whatever you call it, Homosexual marriage is here to stay

Give it two years (or less) and every state will allow it

The sun will still rise, our nation will not crumble, God will not smite us and most will ask........What was all the fuss about?

 

[Pop23]

Whatever you call it, Homosexual marriage is here to stay

Give it two years (or less) and every state will allow it

The sun will still rise, our nation will not crumble, God will not smite us and most will ask........What was all the fuss about?

Bah, societies have tried it before, always fails.

Trying to do with law, what biology won't is crazy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

People who engage in sexual activity with the same sex are more at risk to catch STD, HIV or AIDS than those who are straight. And not only because of these things I won't ever support homosexual marriages.

You realize that support for long term monogamous relationships like Civil Marriage would (in the long term) reduce exposer to such risks. Logic says that if long-term monogamous relationships are supported, then it's kind of hard to catch an STD if neither partner had one to begin with.

By denying Civil Marriage and the societal pressure you would be, IMHO, be maintaining a system that INCREASES STD transmission.

It isn't "same-sex" acts that create more of a risk for STDs as the same "acts" are performed by heterosexuals as well, it is unsafe sex with multiple partners that increases the risk.



>>>>

 

[ShackledNation]

False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.

So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling.

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth.

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

 

[ShackledNation]

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

There were zero same sex marriages prior to Loving. The court would never have considered that in their findings.

Irrelevant to the point. Loving still declared marriage a fundamental human right. It extended only to interracial marriage because that was the question at hand. If you understood how the courts function, this wouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

The court could not have ruled on something non existent at the time.

Your argument is simply goofy

Marriage was existent at the time of loving. The court ruled that marriage was a fundamental right, not merely a privilege. Is this seriously news to you?

 

[Pop23]

So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling.

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth.

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

Infertile couples have had children you dumblefuck

No double standard at all

And you remain delusional

 

[Pop23]

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

There were zero same sex marriages prior to Loving. The court would never have considered that in their findings.

Irrelevant to the point. Loving still declared marriage a fundamental human right. It extended only to interracial marriage because that was the question at hand. If you understood how the courts function, this wouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

The court could not have ruled on something non existent at the time.

Your argument is simply goofy

Marriage was existent at the time of loving. The court ruled that marriage was a fundamental right, not merely a privilege. Is this seriously news to you?

Only marriage between men and women.

You fail that rationality test again

 

[ShackledNation]

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

Infertile couples have had children you dumblefuck

No double standard at all

And you remain delusional

Infertile couples have never had children. Methinks you don't understand what infertile means

 

[ShackledNation]

Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

There were zero same sex marriages prior to Loving. The court would never have considered that in their findings.

Irrelevant to the point. Loving still declared marriage a fundamental human right. It extended only to interracial marriage because that was the question at hand. If you understood how the courts function, this wouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

The court could not have ruled on something non existent at the time.

Your argument is simply goofy

Marriage was existent at the time of loving. The court ruled that marriage was a fundamental right, not merely a privilege. Is this seriously news to you?

Only marriage between men and women.

You fail that rationality test again

When did I ever say same-sex marriages were legal at the time of Loving? The point is that Loving declared marriage a fundamental right. Loving had nothing to do with same-sex couples getting married, so of course it did not legalize same-sex marriage. You're clueless.

 

[Pop23]

There were zero same sex marriages prior to Loving. The court would never have considered that in their findings.

Irrelevant to the point. Loving still declared marriage a fundamental human right. It extended only to interracial marriage because that was the question at hand. If you understood how the courts function, this wouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

The court could not have ruled on something non existent at the time.

Your argument is simply goofy

Marriage was existent at the time of loving. The court ruled that marriage was a fundamental right, not merely a privilege. Is this seriously news to you?

Only marriage between men and women.

You fail that rationality test again

When did I ever say same-sex marriages were legal at the time of Loving? The point is that Loving declared marriage a fundamental right. Loving had nothing to do with same-sex couples getting married, so of course it did not legalize same-sex marriage. You're clueless.

They could not rule on something that did not exist and was not a part of the case.

 

[Pop23]

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

Infertile couples have had children you dumblefuck

No double standard at all

And you remain delusional

Infertile couples have never had children. Methinks you don't understand what infertile means

Because infertile can become fertile through medical procedures is something impossible with same sex couples.

Your jealousy is delicious.

 

[Boss]

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to **** little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

This is where the bait and switch is pulled, you are claiming that two homosexuals of the same gender forming a partnership together is "marriage" and it's simply NOT marriage. If I want to **** children, I can't simply claim that marriage is the union of an adult and child and my fundamental constitutional rights are being violated! You can't make things that AREN'T marriage BE marriage, so you can legitimately make the claim of rights. If we can do that, then ANYTHING can become "marriage" and has to be upheld under Equal Protection.

Not a single homosexual American has ever been denied the right to obtain a marriage license, but marriage licenses are only available to a man and woman wishing to join in matrimony. There is no comparison with Loving, or the issue of interracial marriages because that was a case where the fundamental right to marry was being denied on the basis of race. This is where the fundamental right to marry is NOT being denied, you just want to call something marriage that isn't marriage.

Again... I have laid out a proposal which resolves this issue forever, and to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. Remove government (and courts) from the role of determining for the people what constitutes "marriage" in ANY case. Leave that to the people, society and churches where it belongs. From the formal governmental standpoint, recognize civil union partnerships only. Party A and Party B... any two consenting adults, no delineation on sexual relationship, gender, family relation or anything else other than legal age of consent and no other existing active contracts. The old "marriage licenses" would effectively become CU contracts, all states would begin issuing only CU contracts, churches could do whatever they please, people could call "marriage" whatever they want, gay couples could obtain all their benefits, religious people get to keep sanctity of traditional marriage... and we ******* END this issue FOREVER!

Can ANYONE tell me why this is not acceptable? Not reasonable? Not doable?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Boss said:

“Not a single homosexual American has ever been denied the right to obtain a marriage license, but marriage licenses are only available to a man and woman wishing to join in matrimony. There is no comparison with Loving, or the issue of interracial marriages because that was a case where the fundamental right to marry was being denied on the basis of race. This is where the fundamental right to marry is NOT being denied, you just want to call something marriage that isn't marriage.”


Incorrect.

Loving is in fact on point with regard to the right to decide whom to marry:

'[T]he question as stated in Loving, and as characterized in subsequent opinions, was not whether there is a deeply rooted tradition of interracial marriage, or whether interracial marriage is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty; the right at issue was “the freedom of choice to marry.” Loving, 388 U.S. at 12.' Kitchen et al v. Herbert et al

Just as Loving concerned the freedom of choice to marry, so too do the Marriage Cases address the issue of the same freedom, whether that choice is to marry someone of another race or someone of the same sex, the same right protects citizens from state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[ShackledNation]

Irrelevant to the point. Loving still declared marriage a fundamental human right. It extended only to interracial marriage because that was the question at hand. If you understood how the courts function, this wouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

The court could not have ruled on something non existent at the time.

Your argument is simply goofy

Marriage was existent at the time of loving. The court ruled that marriage was a fundamental right, not merely a privilege. Is this seriously news to you?

Only marriage between men and women.

You fail that rationality test again

When did I ever say same-sex marriages were legal at the time of Loving? The point is that Loving declared marriage a fundamental right. Loving had nothing to do with same-sex couples getting married, so of course it did not legalize same-sex marriage. You're clueless.

They could not rule on something that did not exist and was not a part of the case.

Thank you for repeating what I just said. What did exist, however, was marriage. And Loving ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. They made that quite clear.

 

[ShackledNation]

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

Infertile couples have had children you dumblefuck

No double standard at all

And you remain delusional

Infertile couples have never had children. Methinks you don't understand what infertile means

Because infertile can become fertile through medical procedures is something impossible with same sex couples.

Your jealousy is delicious.

False. Not all infertile couples can become fertile. Furthermore, an elderly woman will never be fertile again as she has stopped producing eggs. Yet they can still get married. You have a bigoted double standard to stand on, nothing more.

 

[ShackledNation]

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to **** little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

Loving was not simply based on race. If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. But they did. They could have simply said "you cannot issue government licenses that discriminate based on race" but they said far more than that. Only if you ignore half of the Loving decision do you conclusions hold water.

States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

If it was all about race, the court would have absolutely no reason to declare marriage a fundamental human right. States do not have the right to abridge individuals of their fundamental human rights. Period.

This is where the bait and switch is pulled, you are claiming that two homosexuals of the same gender forming a partnership together is "marriage" and it's simply NOT marriage. If I want to **** children, I can't simply claim that marriage is the union of an adult and child and my fundamental constitutional rights are being violated! You can't make things that AREN'T marriage BE marriage, so you can legitimately make the claim of rights. If we can do that, then ANYTHING can become "marriage" and has to be upheld under Equal Protection.

Not a single homosexual American has ever been denied the right to obtain a marriage license, but marriage licenses are only available to a man and woman wishing to join in matrimony. There is no comparison with Loving, or the issue of interracial marriages because that was a case where the fundamental right to marry was being denied on the basis of race. This is where the fundamental right to marry is NOT being denied, you just want to call something marriage that isn't marriage.

Again... I have laid out a proposal which resolves this issue forever, and to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. Remove government (and courts) from the role of determining for the people what constitutes "marriage" in ANY case. Leave that to the people, society and churches where it belongs. From the formal governmental standpoint, recognize civil union partnerships only. Party A and Party B... any two consenting adults, no delineation on sexual relationship, gender, family relation or anything else other than legal age of consent and no other existing active contracts. The old "marriage licenses" would effectively become CU contracts, all states would begin issuing only CU contracts, churches could do whatever they please, people could call "marriage" whatever they want, gay couples could obtain all their benefits, religious people get to keep sanctity of traditional marriage... and we ******* END this issue FOREVER!

Can ANYONE tell me why this is not acceptable? Not reasonable? Not doable?

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

 

[Boss]

Incorrect.

Loving is in fact on point with regard to the right to decide whom to marry:

I highlighted a keyword there for you. MARRY.... not enter into a homosexual same-gender relationship and CALL it marriage.

You also DO NOT have a right to decide WHO to marry, if you did, I would currently be married to Kate Upton. But since Kate has no idea who I am, hasn't given her consent to marry me, and is currently dating Justin Verlander, I cannot decide to marry her. But hey... maybe if we're going to claim that marriage is whatever the **** we want it to be and we can marry anyone in the **** we want to marry, and this is our fundamental right... maybe I can marry Kate Upton? Hell, I'll even marry Justin too, I don't mind sharing!

Loving was about MARRIAGE and if a black and white couple could marry. What you people are doing is calling something marriage that isn't marriage and claiming you have the right to do it. You simply don't have the right to change what marriage is to include whatever you please.

 

[Boss]

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice.

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Boss said:

“This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do.”


Incorrect.

It's about the ignorance and hate exhibited by you and many others on the right, and your efforts to codify that ignorance and hate in violation of the Constitution.

You're at liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, you're at liberty to keep them out of your churches and private organizations, and you're at liberty to believe whatever you wish.

You are not at liberty, however, to seek to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than your animus toward a class of persons by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.