It's this simple, so quit wasting my time media

Any questions?

 

"you" is a general statement applying to anyone that is gay.... ie - "you" can not marry, I can.

I can't keep up with who actually is and is not gay on these threads, nor do I care to.

but everything else still stands. You are only concerned with flavor of the day issues, and not true equality. If you were, you'd be complaining just as much about incestuous couples being the denied the same things as the gays are.

You also try to think the two issues are completely independant of the other and that's not true.

Why can siblings be denied marriage? Well most argue that the possibility of birth defects is the reason. But the pro-gay crowd has time in and time out stated that having kids is not an issue to be debated within the marriage argument because that could also be used against two 60 y.o.'s who want to get married, but obviously can't have kids.

Well, if you can't use that argument to prevent gays, how can you use that argument to prevent brother/sister.

Even if you could ignore it for gays, but were still allowed to use it for brother/sister..... what happens when brother/brother marry. There is ZERO chance a gay bro/bro couple will have a retarded kid because of incest, so incest is thrown out the window leaving only the fact that they are two guys, just like any other gay guys.....


the slippery slope is what you try to ignore. I don't ignore it.

 

Repetition of previously addressed and refuted argument

 

Really. They scream that marriage cant be limited to heterosexual couples because of the potential of procreation. Because there is no requirement of procreation. And then turn around and exclude two BROTHERS from marrying because of the potential of procreation IF one of them had been a sister instead. CRAZY!

 

Do you just apply this to gay marriage? Or can I smoke pot in Texas because citizens from Colorado can smoke pot in Colorado? Can a guy in Chicago carry a concealed weapon because I can do so in Texas? Or is this tortured logic only used in the case of gay marriage?

 

Repitition of previously addressed claims of having refuted the argument.

 

Lets calm down guys,,getting a bit tense.

Thanx
flounder

 

it's whatever's convenient to the ghey uhgenduh

 

I don't feel the need to continuously refute the same argument over and over. I simply point out tjat it's been refuted

 

There is no such Thing as a slippery slope regarding Individual Liberty. It is only a myth invented by the Right.

 

Actually, smoking pot and getting married are natural rights secured by due process. Arms regarding the militia of the United States is enumerated in our Second Amendment.

In any case, you are resorting to a false analogy since ensuring the full faith and credit of public Acts is enumerated in our federal Constitution for all of the several States to benefit from as a Standard.

 

The question was what is the rational basis for excluding same-gender couples from marriage (i.e. what government interest is served by refusing them licenses)?

 

A government cannot fairly deny marriage to same-gender couples based on procreation while allowing ALL heterosexual couples to marry. If there's no "right" to same-gender marriage there should be no inalienable right to marriage for opposite sex couples at all. Saying "heterosexual couples are the only couples who procreate" does not justify the overinclusion of death row inmates, post-menopausal, the elderly or the infertile. The state should be able to introduce legislation to block those people from doing so according to your logic. And yet, they cannot.

 

just because you don't understand, or like the reason, is not a valid reason to get a privilege. Maybe the govt that is xx TRILLION dollars in debt says "hey, maybe we shouldn't be handing out privileges and tax breaks to just any group that wants it.


As a fiscal conservative.... I would support NO estate tax exemption (or whatever other privilege gays want) for ANYONE before I would support giving more people that exemption.

- - - Updated - - -

it's funny how comparing gays to blacks of the 60's is a perfectly acceptable analogy for gays, but when gays are compared to anything that hurts their viewpoints, its' deemed a false analogy. Bwahahahahaha.

 

sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich does not prevent the inevitable from happening.

 

I thought conservatives believed in less taxes?.....

Anyway, if the estate tax exemptions were removed, would you support same-sex marriage?

 

And... the stupidity continues.

 

Yeah, that was my point.

 

I thought so.

 

You may be missing the point about the full faith and credit clause; it has nothing to do with race or gender.

 

Comparing blacks to gays proves the point that the analogy you are making is irrelevant. For example, say the marriage license only allows for couples of the same race to marry. Imagine interracial marriage advocates pushing for interracial marriage, and opponents responding with this line:

"If we allow interracial marriage, why not allow a brother and a sister to get married? Therefore, no interracial marriage, because incest is wrong."

I think it is clear to all that that argument is completely fallacious. Yet you make the exact same argument against gay marriage, summed up below:

"If we allow gay marriage, why not allow a brother and a sister to get married? Therefore, no gay marriage, because incest it wrong."

The two arguments are literally the same. If you believe gay marriage is wrong and oppose it by pointing to another type of marriage, you must also believe that interracial marriage is wrong on the same grounds. Are you against interracial marriage, Javis?

 

I'm sorry but America should at least have Civil Unions in all of its states. We don't have that and that is wrong. A Civil Union does not infringe on the Bible and denying them at least that right is complete bull. I also believe that if a couple are married in another state and have to move to one that doesn't recognize the marriage, it should STILL be recognized. Also in America we do not use religious doctrine to determine law. So this whole, well marriage is between and a man and a woman is invalid, try again.

I'm not even a liberal or vote left and I can see this sneering inequality. It is one of the few we actually have in this country and it needs to be fixed.

 

Only fertile heterosexual couples can procreate. If you find it valid to get rid of the fertile part, then I can get rid of the heterosexual part, and say "Only couples" can procreate. That statement is just as accurate, just less specific. If you want to be more specific, then you must include fertile as well, as that is the most specific you can get.

We do know that all who do procreate will also be fertile couples. So why encourage sterile couples to marry? I could just as easily use your exact same logic to support my own argument: "We don't know which humans will procreate. We only know that all who do procreate will be couples. Encouraging all couples to marry leads to more children born...etc."

Do you get the point? You make procreation a specific criteria, which means the correct argument would be in favor of fertile heterosexual marriage. Yet you then apply the argument to a more general category, "heterosexual couple" and remove the specific trait you use to deny homosexuals marriage. The logic is simply not sound.

So if a brother and a sister could produce a completely normal and healthy child, and never caused genetic problems, would you allow them to marry? Assume that scientists were wrong about the genetics problems, for the sake of argument.

What type of couples should marry is the same thing as what couples should marry. Regardless, if you are to determine a type based on procreation, you must only support the marriage of couples that can procreate. Otherwise you have no argument.

 

None whatsoever. The governmental interest is served by making marriages available to heterosexual couples. The governmental interest in giving welfare to the poor, isn't served by excluding the rich. The governmental interest served by giving tax breaks and entitlements to owners of small businesses isn't served by excluding the owners of large businesses. The governmental interest served by requiring owners of dogs to have a license isn't served by excluding the owners of cats. We don't need a rational basis for excluding cat owners, we only need a rational basis for only including dog owners.

 

Nothing quite says freedom of speech like "Shut up".