Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Iceweasel]

You want the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".

That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries. You can't grasp why, we get it. The rest of the world does.

In gay marriage states there's no reason now to prevent polygamy or anything else anyone wants. Who's to decide? The homosexual activists for everybody else? That would be stupid. So it is time for those states to get out of the marriage business.

 

[Syriusly]

You want the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".

That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries. You can't grasp why, we get it. The rest of the world does.

In gay marriage states there's no reason now to prevent polygamy or anything else anyone wants. Who's to decide? The homosexual activists for everybody else? That would be stupid. So it is time for those states to get out of the marriage business.

That is an amazing display of lack of comprehension of the law.....thank you.

gay marriage doesn't equal polygamy

How do we know- well we have almost 2 thousand years of polygamous marriages in some countries- and no gay marriage. If gay marriage leads to polygamy....why wouldn't polygamy lead to gay marriage?

The basic argument for same gender marriage is that States cannot explain what the state interest is in preventing homosexuals to marry is.
You are assuming that you and the States can't come up with any better reason to oppose Polygamy other than "its icky".

 

[Seawytch]

You want the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".

That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries. You can't grasp why, we get it. The rest of the world does.

In gay marriage states there's no reason now to prevent polygamy or anything else anyone wants. Who's to decide? The homosexual activists for everybody else? That would be stupid. So it is time for those states to get out of the marriage business.

A few countries have been marrying gays for over a decade. Which ones also perform Polygamist marriages? None you say? Uh huh...slippery slope fallacy fail.

 

[Iceweasel]

You want the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".

That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries. You can't grasp why, we get it. The rest of the world does.

In gay marriage states there's no reason now to prevent polygamy or anything else anyone wants. Who's to decide? The homosexual activists for everybody else? That would be stupid. So it is time for those states to get out of the marriage business.

That is an amazing display of lack of comprehension of the law.....thank you.

gay marriage doesn't equal polygamy

How do we know- well we have almost 2 thousand years of polygamous marriages in some countries- and no gay marriage. If gay marriage leads to polygamy....why wouldn't polygamy lead to gay marriage?

The basic argument for same gender marriage is that States cannot explain what the state interest is in preventing homosexuals to marry is.
You are assuming that you and the States can't come up with any better reason to oppose Polygamy other than "its icky".

That's an amazing lack of comprehension, period. But I'm talking to someone that can't figure out the unique relationship opposite genders have and the value to the species. No one said gay marriage equals polygamy, your brain is too far gone to see straight apparently. No pun intended.

I didn't oppose polygamy and said nothing about it being icky. We have much more than two thousand years of polygamy, it's existed as far back as recorded history. But for the same reason, male/female, opposite genders coming together for a lifelong bond. That is until relatively recently where divorce became much more common.

States don't need a reason to oppose same sex marriages any more than they need to oppose polygamy, that's the point. Most people want traditional marriage, in most states that right has been taken from them.

So IF that's the way it is then that state needs to get out of marriage altogether, it no longer is representing the people but a special interest group. Government for the people, by the people and all that.

 

[Iceweasel]

A few countries have been marrying gays for over a decade. Which ones also perform Polygamist marriages? None you say? Uh huh...slippery slope fallacy fail.

The slippery slope is in your head. There's no logical reason for them to not have polygamy, it's about caving in to the demands of a special interest group. If enough people lobby hard enough for it polygamy will be legal. What argument could you use against them?

 

[Czernobog]

You want the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".

That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries. You can't grasp why, we get it. The rest of the world does.

By, "rest of the world", I presume you mean the third world, since almost every industrialized nation in the world - Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, even Uruguay, all recognize same sex partnerships (what many reasonable people even call marriages). You really should be careful not to over reach with your hyperbole.

In gay marriage states there's no reason now to prevent polygamy or anything else anyone wants. Who's to decide? The homosexual activists for everybody else? That would be stupid. So it is time for those states to get out of the marriage business.

I couldn't agree more. If polygamists, or anyone else show up looking to get married, it'll be fun watching the heads of you moralists explode. In the meantime, I'm happy celebrating the victories of actual people.

 

[Syriusly]

A few countries have been marrying gays for over a decade. Which ones also perform Polygamist marriages? None you say? Uh huh...slippery slope fallacy fail.

The slippery slope is in your head. There's no logical reason for them to not have polygamy, it's about caving in to the demands of a special interest group. If enough people lobby hard enough for it polygamy will be legal. What argument could you use against them?

If 'enough people lobby hard enough for it polygamy will be legal'- well lobbying implies legislative or the vote of the people.

If you folk manage to convince enough legislators to legalize polygamy or convince enough people to vote to make polygamous relationships marriage, then I will accept it.

What makes you want legal polygamous marriage so much?

 

[Syriusly]

[
States don't need a reason to oppose same sex marriages any more than they need to oppose polygamy, that's the point. Most people want traditional marriage, in most states that right has been taken from them.
.

You have that absolutely backwards.

As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage. States can only deny that right when it can provide a compelling reason to deny that right.

And people still have every right to 'traditional marriage'- no one will be preventing a 'man and a woman' from marrying- so their rights are not infringed on in anyway because Bob and Bill can also legally marry.

 

[Syriusly]

So IF that's the way it is then that state needs to get out of marriage altogether, it no longer is representing the people but a special interest group. Government for the people, by the people and all that.

No more than the government is representing the NRA when courts overturn a gun law voted on by the people.

 

[Iceweasel]

You want the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".

That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries. You can't grasp why, we get it. The rest of the world does.

By, "rest of the world", I presume you mean the third world, since almost every industrialized nation in the world - Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, even Uruguay, all recognize same sex partnerships (what many reasonable people even call marriages). You really should be careful not to over reach with your hyperbole.

In gay marriage states there's no reason now to prevent polygamy or anything else anyone wants. Who's to decide? The homosexual activists for everybody else? That would be stupid. So it is time for those states to get out of the marriage business.

I couldn't agree more. If polygamists, or anyone else show up looking to get married, it'll be fun watching the heads of you moralists explode. In the meantime, I'm happy celebrating the victories of actual people.

I understand that you are a retard so I'll post my comment again and you can read slower or have someone explain it: "That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries."

I haven't said a goddamn thing about morality. Go play in your sandbox until mom gets home.

 

[Iceweasel]

No more than the government is representing the NRA when courts overturn a gun law voted on by the people.

Huh?

 

[Iceweasel]

You have that absolutely backwards.

As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage. States can only deny that right when it can provide a compelling reason to deny that right.

And people still have every right to 'traditional marriage'- no one will be preventing a 'man and a woman' from marrying- so their rights are not infringed on in anyway because Bob and Bill can also legally marry.

You are backwards. If it was a constitutional issue there would be no state decisions.

 

[Syriusly]

You have that absolutely backwards.

As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage. States can only deny that right when it can provide a compelling reason to deny that right.

And people still have every right to 'traditional marriage'- no one will be preventing a 'man and a woman' from marrying- so their rights are not infringed on in anyway because Bob and Bill can also legally marry.

You are backwards. If it was a constitutional issue there would be no state decisions.

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.

You are welcome to stare at the trough and not drink as long as you want.

 

[Iceweasel]

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.

You are welcome to stare at the trough and not drink as long as you want.

You couldn't find the water on a beach.

 

[Syriusly]

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.

You are welcome to stare at the trough and not drink as long as you want.

You couldn't find the water on a beach.

Well that would be because the water is next to the beach- not on it.

 

[Boss]

As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage.

Courts have pointed out no such thing. If marriage is a right, there are literally millions and millions of people in America who are being denied their rights. It means that females are constitutionally obligated to date any male who wants to date them and not deny their right to marry on the basis of discrimination. Obviously, this is absurd.

The right in question is ACCESS to marriage. But "marriage" is the union of a husband and wife.Gay people wanting a same sex union to be "marriage" is a different animal altogether. It's technically no different than a necrophiliac wanting living-dead unions to be "marriage."

 

[Iceweasel]

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.

You are welcome to stare at the trough and not drink as long as you want.

You couldn't find the water on a beach.

Well that would be because the water is next to the beach- not on it.

See what I mean.

 

[Boss]

In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.

Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.

Because this appears to be on it's way and nothing anyone can do about it, we see an often insulting level of smug confidence from gay marriage advocates. What they completely fail to realize is, this is an issue where the sheer numbers don't fall in their favor. They simply don't have the numbers needed to ensconce gay marriage into our constitutional lexicon at this time, and are not likely to have those numbers in the future.

It can be more closely identified with the ERA movement from the 70s, where the same smug confidence existed in progressives who burned their bras and cheered on Women's Rights. Now... where has that gone since it failed in the 70s? We've passed a series of law reforms and bills to ensure gender equality and fair treatment, but without having to radically change the constitution.

The most grim aspect of the details as to why Gay Marriage will not prevail, is the way our process works and the sheer number of evangelical voters there are. What you need first, is 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I doubt you can get 2/3 of EITHER house. You have very high support in very liberal areas of the country. Otherwise, you only have moderate support where you need 2/3 and in some places you have virtually NO support. So the House will likely never forsake the evangelicals and go for a Gay Marriage Act, and the Senate is completely impossible because your liberal states only have 2 votes each, same as everyone else. Look at that popular RED/BLUE map to see how that will work out.

Okay... so now IF you manged to somehow get the Congressional requirement, the Amendment then moves to the ratification process. There, you'll need 2/3 of the states holding specific balloted initiatives to ratify. Gay marriage has struggled to even get majority votes in any ballot initiative, and that is in the most liberal states. In MANY of those states you crow about same-sex marriage now being legal, it was done by courts or legislatures and not by the people. Many of those people are quite pissed off about that. The states where this has been crammed down their throat are not likely going to ratify your Amendment.

This leaves us with the only possibility you have, which is something along the lines of what I have suggested and you have rejected. A Congressional Act to slip the ring off the finger of government and "marriage" where it can be returned intact to the people and churches where it belongs. Such an Act would also be problematic for the same reasons mentioned previously, but it is much more likely than a Gay Marriage Amendment or Act.

 

[Iceweasel]

In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.

Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.

Because this appears to be on it's way and nothing anyone can do about it, we see an often insulting level of smug confidence from gay marriage advocates. What they completely fail to realize is, this is an issue where the sheer numbers don't fall in their favor. They simply don't have the numbers needed to ensconce gay marriage into our constitutional lexicon at this time, and are not likely to have those numbers in the future.

It can be more closely identified with the ERA movement from the 70s, where the same smug confidence existed in progressives who burned their bras and cheered on Women's Rights. Now... where has that gone since it failed in the 70s? We've passed a series of law reforms and bills to ensure gender equality and fair treatment, but without having to radically change the constitution.

The most grim aspect of the details as to why Gay Marriage will not prevail, is the way our process works and the sheer number of evangelical voters there are. What you need first, is 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I doubt you can get 2/3 of EITHER house. You have very high support in very liberal areas of the country. Otherwise, you only have moderate support where you need 2/3 and in some places you have virtually NO support. So the House will likely never forsake the evangelicals and go for a Gay Marriage Act, and the Senate is completely impossible because your liberal states only have 2 votes each, same as everyone else. Look at that popular RED/BLUE map to see how that will work out.

Okay... so now IF you manged to somehow get the Congressional requirement, the Amendment then moves to the ratification process. There, you'll need 2/3 of the states holding specific balloted initiatives to ratify. Gay marriage has struggled to even get majority votes in any ballot initiative, and that is in the most liberal states. In MANY of those states you crow about same-sex marriage now being legal, it was done by courts or legislatures and not by the people. Many of those people are quite pissed off about that. The states where this has been crammed down their throat are not likely going to ratify your Amendment.

This leaves us with the only possibility you have, which is something along the lines of what I have suggested and you have rejected. A Congressional Act to slip the ring off the finger of government and "marriage" where it can be returned intact to the people and churches where it belongs. Such an Act would also be problematic for the same reasons mentioned previously, but it is much more likely than a Gay Marriage Amendment or Act.

Great post. The other thing is that race and gender are not a choice or preference. Religion is but religious freedom is one of the primary driving factors to the US being founded.

Human sexuality is very complex, as complex as people are. Many gays led heterosexual lives at one point, some had kids. Some people can swing either way. Some at the same time! To categorize sexual orientation along with the others would be a huge departure and opens a Pandora's box that can't be closed.

It should be a state issue but the states should just get out of marriage. anyone can marry anyone. Oddly gays don't seem to be in favor of it, which leads me to believe the acceptance as an alternative lifestyle is the real reason.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A few countries have been marrying gays for over a decade. Which ones also perform Polygamist marriages? None you say? Uh huh...slippery slope fallacy fail.

The slippery slope is in your head. There's no logical reason for them to not have polygamy, it's about caving in to the demands of a special interest group. If enough people lobby hard enough for it polygamy will be legal. What argument could you use against them?

Incorrect.

It does in fact fail as a slippery slope fallacy.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, unlike three or more persons. Consequently nothing is being 'changed' with regard to marriage law by acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, where allowing three or more persons to marry would require a change in marriage law.

Your mistake is to perceive acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples as some sort of 'special accommodation, when in fact it is not.