What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[Gallowglass]

[obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...

When people start threads advocating those sorts of marriage, then you should feel free to argue with them.

Why? Are you trying to deny them their rights?

Why shouldn't polygamists be free to form families of their choice? Objections to it are just based on culture and religion, after all.

And what about paedophilia? The only reason it's outlawed is because of some cultural notion that children should be shielded from sexuality and retain "innocence". But really, in this enlightened age of sex ed and tolerance, haven't we moved beyond these outmoded mores?

 

[bodecea]

So NOW sexual orientation IS immutable?


So which is it? Is sexual orientation immutable or not?

And how many sexual preferences can there be? Either you like men or women or both?

That's three.

No one's asking for PROTECTED class. Gay people are asking for EXPANDING the federal marriage recognition. See the difference?

I keep telling you, no one is asking for proof. I'm asking you. NOW are you telling us that your sexual preference in the future may not be your sexual preference today? I know mine will be the same in the future.



You said there were all kinds of sexual preferences, all which demand a special protected class. I count three. Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Are heterosexuals a protected class? Regardless, homosexual marriage is just an expansion of heterosexual marriage. You seem to have a problem with it for some reason. Bisexual marriage?? Until polygamy becomes legal, the bisexual will have to pick one or the other. Still no special protected class there.

i see the difference...you aren't asking for protected class because you have nothing to stand on.....so what is your valid reason for EXPANDING the definition...? there is no right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution.....

WHO SAID MARRIAGE WAS A RIGHT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Homosexuals ALREADY get married by churches.

The argument isn't whether the right to marriage is in the Constitution. The argument isn't even whether marriage is a right.

The argument is if heterosexuals get benefits from the federal government when they get married, homosexuals should too. It's really not that difficult.

Anal and oral sex should be outlawed as physically dangerous. That would end the issue.

Ah...Big Brother Government in our bedrooms....the Conservative Wet Dream.

 

[Gallowglass]

I keep telling you, no one is asking for proof. I'm asking you. NOW are you telling us that your sexual preference in the future may not be your sexual preference today? I know mine will be the same in the future.



You said there were all kinds of sexual preferences, all which demand a special protected class. I count three. Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Are heterosexuals a protected class? Regardless, homosexual marriage is just an expansion of heterosexual marriage. You seem to have a problem with it for some reason. Bisexual marriage?? Until polygamy becomes legal, the bisexual will have to pick one or the other. Still no special protected class there.



WHO SAID MARRIAGE WAS A RIGHT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Homosexuals ALREADY get married by churches.

The argument isn't whether the right to marriage is in the Constitution. The argument isn't even whether marriage is a right.

The argument is if heterosexuals get benefits from the federal government when they get married, homosexuals should too. It's really not that difficult.

Anal and oral sex should be outlawed as physically dangerous. That would end the issue.

Ah...Big Brother Government in our bedrooms....the Conservative Wet Dream.

Well, he's going to be hovering over our hospital beds anyway, courtesy of people like you.

 

[bodecea]

Anal and oral sex should be outlawed as physically dangerous. That would end the issue.

Ah...Big Brother Government in our bedrooms....the Conservative Wet Dream.

Well, he's going to be hovering over our hospital beds anyway, courtesy of people like you.

"People like me"?

 

[Seawytch]

Anal and oral sex should be outlawed as physically dangerous. That would end the issue.

Oh look, the "small government" bedroom police have arrived. Of course, you just want "the gheys" to stop sucking cock, but your "little nipper" still gets slobbered on (while watching girl on girl porn), right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....

as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....

No one ever said they were.

Although homosexuals are not considered a suspect class, such as with race and ethnicity, they are nonetheless a recognized class of persons, entitled to equal protection rights, in the context of their right to self-determination as individuals:

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.

The State cannot demean [the] existence [of homosexuals] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” [citing Casey]

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Clearly there is no greater aspect of one’s personal liberty than whom to marry; and clearly the state is in no position to dictate to any person whom he may marry predicated solely on the fact he is a homosexual.

clearly the right to one's personal privacy does not automatically equate to state recognized marriage....

Either intentionally or through no fault of your own, you’re not understanding the fundamental tenets concerning substantive due process and the restrictions the Constitution places on the state with regard to government interference with matters of a personal matter.

Consequently, a great burden is placed on the state to justify its motives to exclude a given class of persons from its law, the states that seek to do so with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage law have failed to meet that burden.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

what i see in all of this is a lot of activist judges legislating from the bench....plus a whole lot of leftie media propaganda.....why not let the people vote for what they want....but then you might wind up with only one or two states for gay marriage...

Then you've been missing what has been going...

..........There are 11 legal entities where Same-sex Civil Marriage is a reality (9 States + DC)...

................The majority of those entities have Civil Marriage equality because they passed it through the legislature or through votes at the ballot box.




>>>>

excuse me but there is already "Civil Marriage" in all 50 states....MARRIAGE is one man, one woman...

Same-sex Civil UNIONS now exist in several states.....but NOT "Same-sex Civil Marriage" as you claim....

i realize you guys are attempting to win by redefining marriage but we know the difference...and your little semantic tricks don't fool us.....

i was saying that gay 'MARRIAGE' would be a total FLOP if people got to vote on it.....instead of it being pushed through the activist courts.....

instead of being civil 'married' you gays would have to settle for being civil 'unionized'.....a suitable term for you lefties.....

 

[LittleNipper]

I keep telling you, no one is asking for proof. I'm asking you. NOW are you telling us that your sexual preference in the future may not be your sexual preference today? I know mine will be the same in the future.



You said there were all kinds of sexual preferences, all which demand a special protected class. I count three. Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Are heterosexuals a protected class? Regardless, homosexual marriage is just an expansion of heterosexual marriage. You seem to have a problem with it for some reason. Bisexual marriage?? Until polygamy becomes legal, the bisexual will have to pick one or the other. Still no special protected class there.



WHO SAID MARRIAGE WAS A RIGHT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Homosexuals ALREADY get married by churches.

The argument isn't whether the right to marriage is in the Constitution. The argument isn't even whether marriage is a right.

The argument is if heterosexuals get benefits from the federal government when they get married, homosexuals should too. It's really not that difficult.

Anal and oral sex should be outlawed as physically dangerous. That would end the issue.

Ah...Big Brother Government in our bedrooms....the Conservative Wet Dream.

Actually the Liberal wet dream. It is most obvious that everyone registered as "married" to the same sex would have little else to accomplish in the bedroom. So, the government would already know where to begin their arrests.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

So NOW sexual orientation IS immutable?


So which is it? Is sexual orientation immutable or not?

And how many sexual preferences can there be? Either you like men or women or both?

That's three.

No one's asking for PROTECTED class. Gay people are asking for EXPANDING the federal marriage recognition. See the difference?

I keep telling you, no one is asking for proof. I'm asking you. NOW are you telling us that your sexual preference in the future may not be your sexual preference today? I know mine will be the same in the future.

nobody's asking for proof because there isn't any....

if there are just 3 sexual preferences then why not address all 3 at once...? what's the problem...?

You said there were all kinds of sexual preferences, all which demand a special protected class. I count three. Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Are heterosexuals a protected class? Regardless, homosexual marriage is just an expansion of heterosexual marriage. You seem to have a problem with it for some reason. Bisexual marriage?? Until polygamy becomes legal, the bisexual will have to pick one or the other. Still no special protected class there.

you're changing the subject......i asked why not address all 3 preferences at once if that's all there is....if you got the answer for homos you should also have the answer for bi's in order to simply "expand heterosexual marriage".....

i see the difference...you aren't asking for protected class because you have nothing to stand on.....so what is your valid reason for EXPANDING the definition...? there is no right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution.....

WHO SAID MARRIAGE WAS A RIGHT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION?
some of you think gay marriage is right there next to abortion...

Homosexuals ALREADY get married by churches. so..?

The argument isn't whether the right to marriage is in the Constitution. The argument isn't even whether marriage is a right.

The argument is if heterosexuals get benefits from the federal government when they get married, homosexuals should too. It's really not that difficult.

i think it's more about who gets to determine that....

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

what i see in all of this is a lot of activist judges legislating from the bench....plus a whole lot of leftie media propaganda.....why not let the people vote for what they want....but then you might wind up with only one or two states for gay marriage...

Then you've been missing what has been going...

..........There are 11 legal entities where Same-sex Civil Marriage is a reality (9 States + DC)...

................The majority of those entities have Civil Marriage equality because they passed it through the legislature or through votes at the ballot box.




>>>>

excuse me but there is already "Civil Marriage" in all 50 states....MARRIAGE is one man, one woman...

True...

And in 9 of those states it includes CIVIL MARRIAGE as one man + one woman, one man + one man, and one woman + one woman.

Just as "VOTER" used to be white male it now includes all males and females over the age of 18.

Same-sex Civil UNIONS now exist in several states.....but NOT "Same-sex Civil Marriage" as you claim....

Go to the Court House in any of those states or the District of Columbia and get a license, it will say "Marriage" at the top representing the couple is entering a Civil Marriage.

i realize you guys are attempting to win by redefining marriage but we know the difference...and your little semantic tricks don't fool us.....

Under the law, in those 10 legal entities, there is no difference.

i was saying that gay 'MARRIAGE' would be a total FLOP if people got to vote on it.....instead of it being pushed through the activist courts.....

Again you are wrong.

The majority of States with Civil Marriage and the District of Columbia did it through legislative action and initiative/ballot votes by the people, not through the courts.

So ya, people have voted on it and starting last year three initiatives to approve Same-sex Civil Marriage on the ballot during General Election each passed through a vote of the people.

instead of being civil 'married' you gays would have to settle for being civil 'unionized'.....a suitable term for you lefties.....

1. I'm not gay.

2. I'm not a lefty, I'm more a Goldwater Conservative reflecting a member of what the Republican party was like before the Religious Right/Social Authoritarian wing rose in the 80's. A wing now in decline, so maybe we can get these social authoritarian issues behind us so we can really work on the economy, jobs, illegal aliens, and the debt/deficit.

3. I live in a world of reality, but if thinking of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples as a "Union" instead of what it really is - if that let's you sleep at night - then more power to you. You can go with that.


>>>>

 

[LittleNipper]

Anal and oral sex should be outlawed as physically dangerous. That would end the issue.

Oh look, the "small government" bedroom police have arrived. Of course, you just want "the gheys" to stop sucking cock, but your "little nipper" still gets slobbered on (while watching girl on girl porn), right?

Such, is how homosexuality spreads ---- watching, experimentation... All of this is a part of Sodomy. Sex was never meant to be a spectator's sport.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No one ever said they were.

Although homosexuals are not considered a suspect class, such as with race and ethnicity, they are nonetheless a recognized class of persons, entitled to equal protection rights, in the context of their right to self-determination as individuals:



Clearly there is no greater aspect of one’s personal liberty than whom to marry; and clearly the state is in no position to dictate to any person whom he may marry predicated solely on the fact he is a homosexual.

clearly the right to one's personal privacy does not automatically equate to state recognized marriage....

Either intentionally or through no fault of your own, you’re not understanding the fundamental tenets concerning substantive due process and the restrictions the Constitution places on the state with regard to government interference with matters of a personal matter.

Consequently, a great burden is placed on the state to justify its motives to exclude a given class of persons from its law, the states that seek to do so with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage law have failed to meet that burden.

state motive is to preserve traditional marriage and the protection and care of children and the family unit as a basic foundational block for society....that's a whole lot to scrap for the self-centered wants of a teeny tiny minority....

 

[LittleNipper]

Then you've been missing what has been going...

..........There are 11 legal entities where Same-sex Civil Marriage is a reality (9 States + DC)...

................The majority of those entities have Civil Marriage equality because they passed it through the legislature or through votes at the ballot box.




>>>>

excuse me but there is already "Civil Marriage" in all 50 states....MARRIAGE is one man, one woman...

True...

And in 9 of those states it includes CIVIL MARRIAGE as one man + one woman, one man + one man, and one woman + one woman.

Just as "VOTER" used to be white male it now includes all males and females over the age of 18.



Go to the Court House in any of those states or the District of Columbia and get a license, it will say "Marriage" at the top representing the couple is entering a Civil Marriage.



Under the law, in those 10 legal entities, there is no difference.

i was saying that gay 'MARRIAGE' would be a total FLOP if people got to vote on it.....instead of it being pushed through the activist courts.....

Again you are wrong.

The majority of States with Civil Marriage and the District of Columbia did it through legislative action and initiative/ballot votes by the people, not through the courts.

So ya, people have voted on it and starting last year three initiatives to approve Same-sex Civil Marriage on the ballot during General Election each passed through a vote of the people.

instead of being civil 'married' you gays would have to settle for being civil 'unionized'.....a suitable term for you lefties.....

1. I'm not gay.

2. I'm not a lefty, I'm more a Goldwater Conservative reflecting a member of what the Republican party was like before the Religious Right/Social Authoritarian wing rose in the 80's. A wing now in decline, so maybe we can get these social authoritarian issues behind us so we can really work on the economy, jobs, and the debt/deficit.

3. I live in a world of reality, but if thinking of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples as a "Union" instead of what it really is - if that let's you sleep at night - then more power to you. You can go with that.


>>>>

So, you represent a one party system with a choice ------ A liberal who changes everything, or a liberal who accepts everything the changing liberal begins. We pretty much already have this system. I find I vote for the lesser of two evils. Socialism vs liberalism. If that were not the case Bible reading and prayer would have somehow returned to the public classroom out of respect to the majority of Americans in 1963. Aborton would have been somehow curtailed out of respect to the majority of Americans of the early 1970's . Sale taxes would have been reduced or even eliminated over time. Property taxes would have been reduced. No, the reality is that American politicians are far too concerned with their own positions of power to worry about what America has already become. The only thing I see changing this is an invasion of some form that would basically reduce America to starting all over again. But why should that happen, when we are slowly becoming a socialistic country from within... Isn't that right?

 

[LittleNipper]

Look back at that case and Scalia's freak out over it. Put it together with precedent set in other right to marry cases and see where you end up...

what i see in all of this is a lot of activist judges legislating from the bench....plus a whole lot of leftie media propaganda.....why not let the people vote for what they want....but then you might wind up with only one or two states for gay marriage...

You think civil rights should be put up for a vote?

I believe civil rights should be founded on GODLY principle and not HUMANISTIC principles. Spiritualism vs Materialism. When a people seek the mind of GOD they do not seek to please RULERS, MAJORITIES and MINORITES. They strive to do what is right and wholesome and true. But when one seeks change, a majority concensus is much harder to manipulate than a minority. And rulers can be paid off. Clearly, 99% of homosexuals who want to get married are for "gay" marriage at any cost. They have their OWN self-interests at stake. However, within the majority, there are people who are pulled both ways and many have very logical reasons for how they feel on the subject. And logically children and the foundation for marriage should be the concern and not something to circumvent to impress one group at the risk of spoiling the stew for American society at large...

 

[rightwinger]

what i see in all of this is a lot of activist judges legislating from the bench....plus a whole lot of leftie media propaganda.....why not let the people vote for what they want....but then you might wind up with only one or two states for gay marriage...

You think civil rights should be put up for a vote?

I believe civil rights should be founded on GODLY principle and not HUMANISTIC principles. Spiritualism vs Materialism. When a people seek the mind of GOD they do not seek to please RULERS, MAJORITIES and MINORITES. They strive to do what is right and wholesome and true. But when one seeks change, a majority concenses is much harder to manipulate than a minority. And rulers can be paid off. Clearly, 99% of homosexuals who want to get married are for "gay" marriage. They have their OWN self-interests at stake. However, within the majority, there are people who are pulled both ways and many have very logical reasons for how they feel on the subject. And logically children and the foundation for marriage should be the concern and not something to circumvent to impress one group at the risk of spoiling the stew for American society at large...

Every major innovation in Civil Rights has happened in spite of what God said

1. Slavery was justified because God permitted it in the bible
2. Restrictions on womens rights were justified because of the bible
3. Denial of Civil Rights and segregation were justified because of biblical references
4. Gays are being denied rights because of the bible

 

[Seawytch]

Anal and oral sex should be outlawed as physically dangerous. That would end the issue.

Oh look, the "small government" bedroom police have arrived. Of course, you just want "the gheys" to stop sucking cock, but your "little nipper" still gets slobbered on (while watching girl on girl porn), right?

Such, is how homosexuality spreads ---- watching, experimentation... All of this is a part of Sodomy. Sex was never meant to be a spectator's sport.

ROFLMAO...you actually believe sexual orientation is learned? Such a child...

 

[LittleNipper]

You think civil rights should be put up for a vote?

I believe civil rights should be founded on GODLY principle and not HUMANISTIC principles. Spiritualism vs Materialism. When a people seek the mind of GOD they do not seek to please RULERS, MAJORITIES and MINORITES. They strive to do what is right and wholesome and true. But when one seeks change, a majority concensus is much harder to manipulate than a minority. And rulers can be paid off. Clearly, 99% of homosexuals who want to get married are for "gay" marriage. They have their OWN self-interests at stake. However, within the majority, there are people who are pulled both ways and many have very logical reasons for how they feel on the subject. And logically children and the foundation for marriage should be the concern and not something to circumvent to impress one group at the risk of spoiling the stew for American society at large...

Every major innovation in Civil Rights has happened in spite of what God said

1. Slavery was justified because God permitted it in the bible
2. Restrictions on womens rights were justified because of the bible
3. Denial of Civil Rights and segregation were justified because of biblical references
4. Gays are being denied rights because of the bible

People who sell themselves so they can have what they wish are enslaved already. If you read the Bible you will find there were very strict rules that God put in place so that slaves would not be abused, and they could be freed. The Old Testament allows slavery, but the New Testament moves us from accepting slavery towards a position of brothers and sisters in the Lord Christ Jesus. In the ancient world EVERYONE with power had slaves; however, the best treated slaves were those under the Mosaic Law. And until America was founded, most of the world was still under the influences of PAGAN traditions. AND THE FACTS ARE THAT THE OLD SOUTH WAS NOT TREATING SLAVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE BIBLE CLEARLY PRESENTED. It was the fact that the United States prided itself to be the first nation to attempt to run under godly biblical principle that eventually brought about the Civil War. It was inevitable. Fundamentalism is what ended slavery and not atheism. An atheist believes he only has to answer to other men (ends justify the means). A Christian believes he must answer to GOD (means justify the ends).

 

[LittleNipper]

Oh look, the "small government" bedroom police have arrived. Of course, you just want "the gheys" to stop sucking cock, but your "little nipper" still gets slobbered on (while watching girl on girl porn), right?

Such, is how homosexuality spreads ---- watching, experimentation... All of this is a part of Sodomy. Sex was never meant to be a spectator's sport.

ROFLMAO...you actually believe sexual orientation is learned? Such a child...

Does advertising work or is it a waste of corporate money? DO styles change because of what people see happening around them or is society unmoved by trends? You tell me! I think my "childish" imaginings are years beyond your "maturity."

 

[Seawytch]

Such, is how homosexuality spreads ---- watching, experimentation... All of this is a part of Sodomy. Sex was never meant to be a spectator's sport.

ROFLMAO...you actually believe sexual orientation is learned? Such a child...

Does advertising work or is it a waste of corporate money. DO styles change because of what people see happening around them or is society unmoved by trends? You tell me! I think my "childish" imaginings are years beyond your "maturity."

So you actually believe that a glossy billboard or a funny commercial is going to make you want to suck another guy's dick?

Do you seriously believe that you chose your sexual orientation? When did you make the choice? How did you? Flip of a coin?

 

[Jarhead]

Such, is how homosexuality spreads ---- watching, experimentation... All of this is a part of Sodomy. Sex was never meant to be a spectator's sport.

ROFLMAO...you actually believe sexual orientation is learned? Such a child...

Does advertising work or is it a waste of corporate money. DO styles change because of what people see happening around them or is society unmoved by trends? You tell me! I think my "childish" imaginings are years beyond your "maturity."

I dont like chocolate.

Some of those ads for chocolate are extremely appealing to others, but I was born with a natural aversion to chocolate...so when I see an ad for it, I have absolutely no desire "inspired".

Your problem is, you think homosexuality is "learned".