Why is fighting gay marriage such a big issue for many of you?

Noooo a woman is only provided with a husband, and a man is only provided with a wife. Matrimony, Latin root of the word MATER, MOTHER! (*)Only a woman becomes a mother and only a man is obligated to provide and care for that child. More Latin from BC Roman law.
Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")...

 

You are right, my mistake. I also don't understand why its a big issue for those fighting gay marriage. It really wouldn't change anything for everyone else.

 

I am an atheist and "gay marriage" violates a basic principle of constitutional law that states that all discrimination must at a minimum serve a legitimate governmental interest. Advocate for marriage for any two consenting adults who desire to be married. EQUALITY. "Gay marriage" has nothing to do with equality and is instead inequality by design for those who are gay.

 

You can continue your BS but you can't change the meaning of the word that you brought up "maritari" in defining where "marriage" came from.

Dixon: "The word "marriage" came along in the English language at that time. The definition of a husband and wife comes from Latin word marītāri which goes back to BC Rome"

 

Pure BS and you are a bigot. Glad that is settled.There is no Constitutional reason to ban gay marriage but there is a Constitutional reason to give every gender their individual rights.

 

As I've said to you more times than I care to even think about, same sex marriage will not be limited to simply gay individuals. There will be no gay test. You will not have to sodomize your spouse to be in front of the Clerk of Court. Your position is so pathetically ridiculous I don't even know why I'm bothering.

 

Again, I'd like proof. For example, what does the Torah, Quran or Christian Bibles say about same-sex marriage or sex between women?

 

It really doesn't matter. Whether it does, or does not, and whether it's stated, implied, or otherwise. We do not consult those mythical tomes when making civil law, period.

 

??? You are the only one trying to change the meaning of the word maritari

 

I agree that the Bible, the Torah, the Quran and all other mythological tomes are irrelevant when it comes to US law, but I'm wondering what the rational is of zealots who mindlessly say "it's in the Bible" when it's really not.

 

Why is homosexuality wrong? Because dat dare Bible told ya so? That same Bible that told you that divorce is wrong in most cases, and that if you get remarried, you're committing adultery? Why don't you legislate THAT. Oh, that's right, because you just want to cherry pick your morality from the Bible to suit your selfish desires and prejudices.

 

The word is maritare and the latin definition is: marry, give in marriage. Nothing about male/female union.

http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/26457/marito-maritare-maritavi-maritatus

 

I "plan" no such thing.

I simply will continue to use the English language in its correct manner; and offer no tacit approval to those who would prefer to corrupt it.

Your view of the function of words, on the other hand, would appear to be summed up rather neatly by Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll:

What did I attribute incorrectly to you?

(In any case, I believe it would be safe to assert that I have launched no ad hominem attacks upon you.)

That is a downright Orwellian thought...

Why would you claim any such thing?

I have no desire to "control" anyone else. I simply decline to acquiesce in the left's desire to transform the language, in order to (attempt to) frame the debate, in terms more congenial to its own interests...

 

none of this is true of course. you have to have a valid constitutional reason to deny a basic civil right to a class of people. you have no such justification for denying same sex couples marriage.

 

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. {The president is lying because the Constitution is amended to prevent an uncountable number of faiths depriving the perceived subhuman of due process.} We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [the rule of law that kills Homos]. But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence [of taking the law into one’s own hands]. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."


If you cannot denigrate the religious beliefs that Homos are an abomination before the lord, to be killed, you pretty have opened the gates to the Trojan Horse of infiltrative law; if you can denigrate you have a condom argument, may the best argument win, if you cannot denigrate you have no defense against disease, may disease win.

There is a difference between a Trojan Horse of infiltrative law and taking the law into one’s own hands. With the former your commander is either an idiot or a quisling, and supports a rule of law that is not currently preferred, and with the latter the attackers simply had motive.

Since the phrase “senseless violence” implies no motive, whereas the preceding sentence in the paragraph implies motive (the offensive YouTube video), therefore, we either have "Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated," or it was “senseless violence” because those attacked were innocent and the law of the attackers was total unrestricted warfare.

If there was motive or “spontaneous reaction” to the YouTube video, and they were simply attacking Americans in total unrestricted warfare, it was taking the law into one’s own hands or we are at war with Islam.

Since the act of saying, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” is giving any side a Trojan Horse, including those attackers with motive or Islam bearing gifts, such that the preferred rule of law is defenseless, and since logic dictates that nobody could have been a constitutional law professor and become president and be an idiot, therefore, the president is a quisling.

- - - Updated - - -

I support LGBT marriage.

 

The dozen cited court cases say otherwise. You'll always have your opinions.

 

Did you know that in the early days of the Mormon Church, Josesh Smith allowed polyandery? How do you classify that one?

 

[MENTION][/MENTION]

????? Multiple marriages, each and everyone of them between a man and a woman, of course

 

Nonsense. No court case you have cited provides a constitutional justification for denying same sex couples a basic civil right

 

Each of those courts say otherwise. But youll always have your personal opinions

 

The courts say otherwise.

 

Nonsense. No court case you have cited provides a constitutional justification for denying same sex marriage

- - - Updated - - -

No they don't. Thats why you keep losing in court. Citing a 30 year old case is pretty stupid

 

It's about fear of change and fear of something they don't understand. It's not really rational, and I don't mean that as an insult, I mean it as the honest-to-Joe truth.

Every argument made against same-sex marriage can be boiled to someone feeling uncomfortable. They don't have facts. They don't have evidence It's all subjective discomfort, and some religion thrown in as well.

That's why they are losing. Kids don't buy that crap because they've grown up with gay people, seen they are not the scary scary monsters their parents fear they are, and come to the conclusion that the grown-ups making a big deal of it are really just negative people. These are the kids growing up and voting out the dinosaurs who still oppose this. They are voting against the state bills trying to ban it, and voting for the ones trying to legalize it. They are refreshing faces in a conversation filled to the brim with bull(*)(*)(*)(*), lies, exaggerations, and just plain old hate and bigotry.

Homophobia and anti-gay sentiment exists solely because it hasn't died yet. At least in this country, it is on the way out, enjoying it's last hoorah(and that's assuming we haven't already seen the last one).

I wonder what the next irrational hot button issue will be? Backwards hats? Pokemon? Good lord anti-gay people, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE pick reality shows as your next boogeyman, and please please please be more successful at opposing it than you have been at opposing same-sex marriage.

 

Arent I the only one left on this thread arguing against gay marriage? Revealing, you run to counter the arguments nobody is making, while ignorring the only argument that is being made.