Gay Marriage and the Limits of 'Tradition'-

what about equal rights for polygamous people? Why should gays get special treatment, when other groups dont have their rights??

 

What grade level do you read at Sam?

 

That sarcastic response has nothing to do with my actual arguement. My question is this. Why do you support gays getting special treatment that no other group of alternative lifestyle couples gets?

 

I don't see how equality isn't the case now, my angry young friend. Homosexuals have the same rights to get married as everyone else. Or maybe you think it's a human right to get married to whoever you want to? Well, in that case I'm afraid my human rights have been violated: I wasn't able to marry a large breasted and kind-natured heiress.

 

My young friend?? I'm a senior! You should not make assumptions about people who you don't know anything about. Chances are pretty good you'll wind up looking stupid

That is a pretty shallow and simplistic response to two detailed paragraphs that I posted after you accused me of being without principles.

And I've heard all of the horse(*)(*)(*)(*) before. Perhaps you are young enough to have time to learn what compassion and humanity towards your fellow human beings is, or perhaps you will die an ignorant and hateful old fool. Read my signature line. You will now be ignored. You should also change your handle. There's nothing honest about you.

 

When did I say anything of the sort? Read it again. Slowly. Think about it. Get help from others if need be.

 

Constitutional law is behind their stances. Bans against same sex marriage violate the 14th amendment. AIDS, polygamy and incest have no relevance to same sex marriage. That's why I called you on them.

.
Red herring

Red herring and a strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman

- - - Updated - - -

Red herring and a strawman

 

A: I don't care even if you are correct.
B: There is no equal protection case to be made.
C: Marriage tends to increase monogamy, which decreases the spread of disease.
D: Lesbians spread STD's at a lower rate even than heterosexuals.

 

Leave it to the states and be done with it. Everybody trying to solve this at the federal level on both sides is wrong.

 

States do not have the ability to justifiably exclude SSM once they are recognized by another state simply because the federal government extends protections to individuals who are married.

The problem was created by the government once they got intertwined in marriage. Make marriage a secular institution with no federal/state/local protections or tax breaks and the issue will disappear (aka treat everyone as individuals). The anti-ssm will hardly give up their "special" status so we are back at square one. As long as the government is involved SSM will eventually become legal nationwide.

The whole system is bad - but the tax system in this country is a special kind of f****d,

 

The problem with that is if the states were in charge of it solely if somebody was married in Minnesota then moved to Ohio, they would have to get married again in Ohio. That is why states aren't in charge of it.

There is a special clause created by the federal government to exclude homosexual couples from this protection. For no other reason than they are same sex couples.

There has been no articulated reason to exclude homosexuals.

 

Sure they do. Federal government can extend marriage benefits to whoever they choose, but doesn't mean the states must also do so. But that something the gays and their advocates want to take away from the states. Federally mandating that states must also promote more respect and dignity for gays through marriage.

 

Actually, it excludes any two people of the same sex. NOT because they are homosexual, they may not be. But instead because they are of the same sex.

 

How is the single mother and grandmother raising their children/grandchildren for over a decade not alike two gay men? And what relevance does that difference have to the governmental interest served by excluding the mother and grandmother while including the two gay guys?

 

Give me a break! This is a constitutional republic. The articles of confederation were tossed when the constitution became law. The states do not have the final word on civil rights. If they did, we would still have slavery or at least Jim crow laws. If we left it to the states, it would be another 150 years before social justice came to the south. It is in fact a federal constitutional issue and SCOTUS will soon settle it.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Homo=same

Tomato tomâto

Splitting hairs because you have no argument once again huh?

 

Why do you keep pitching this garbage? A mother and daughter are already related, that is all a marriage does is allow two people to become related by affinity. Why would people related by consanguinity need to also be related by affinity?

 

The state do not have to extend benefits to any married couple...But if they extend it to one, they must extend it to all.

 

To receive the thousands of state and federal benefits reserved to those who are married , of course. To benefit their family. And I keep asking the same questions because you people haven't answered them. Their common affinity is what makes them "alike", not different. What governmental interest is served by withholding those benefits from those whose affinity is biological while making them available to those whose infinity is instead sexual?

 

It seems Dixon will come up with any nonsense possible to dodge that truth.

 

Two people who are closely related can't get married to each other. Your question isn't valid.

So you are against a husband and wife being married because a mother and daughter cannot get married? That doesn't make any sense.

A mother and daughter don't ever need to get married to each other they are already related through consanguinity.

 

States can't violate the US constitution. Bans against same sex marriage violate the 14th amendment.

 

Two people of the same sex cant get married in 30 something states. The question becomes valid in the near 20 states that allow two people of the same sex to marry.

No. Your strawman doesn't make any sense, but that's why you selected it. A prospective husband and wife consisting of a man and a woman unrelated to each other are distinguishable from any other type of couple in that only they have the potential of procreation without the genetic risk of procreation between closely related couples..

They do to get the thousands of benefits of marriage you insist be made available to homosexual couples.

 

Yes it does. It's called equal application of the law.

Nobody has suggested any such thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Which only affects homosexuals.

 

Tell that to the gays and their advocates who insist that marriage only need be extended to gay couples while any other couple excluded by law, continues to be so excluded.