Homosexual marriage

nope. there are over 1,400 "rights/benefits" that come with marriage that is currently being denied to homosexuals wishing to marry.

 

While I don't agree with every splinter in the Libertarian Party's politcal platform they are anything but a right wing fundamentalist political party. Many confuse groups like the Tea Party as being "libertarians" but they are not as they generally represent the extremist religious fundamentalists of the Repubican Party.

I would suggest that someone wanting to know what a Libertarian is actually visit the Libertarian Party website. www.lp.org They won't find the Republican version of limited liberty there and the LP does support same-sex marriage and go even further than that in this article.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releas...only-one-step-toward-ending-legal-discriminat

 

Yes, because as everyone knows, being gay is the same as cross-dressing.

Many reasons, including property, title, and/or wealth transfer. And while yes, it is true that successive generations would inherit these benefits, that was not the major or predominant purpose.

Complete nonsense. I've had close exposure to and experience with gays literally my entire life. But it doesn't matter anyway, your whole point is irrelevant to gay-marriage.

If a heterosexual couple can marry and receive tax benefits, but a homosexual couple cannot (both or either), then obviously all are not equal.

Idiots indeed.

 

I should point out that it's not only "The Right" that opposes legal parity for our gay friends and neighbors.

 

I don't oppose same sex marriage....homosexuals marrying homosexuals seems like the right thing to do (emphasis on 'RIGHT'). Why do conservatives wnat to continue denying a portion of the population a civil right.....is it becuase they fear homosexuals?

 

Homosexual is not a race nor is it a sex. Please explain what it is. No one has yet.

A human being attracted to the opposite sex is perfectly normal and it is not irrational. It is not normal to be attracted to a person of the same sex, that would be irrational.

Since a man cannot get pregnant and a woman cannot impregnate anyone homosexuals cannot procreate.

 

Marriage is not a civil right.

 

None of which has anything at all to do with the fact that you made a statist argument and then followed it up with one complaining that the movement for equal marriage is a statist movement.

You can pretend to be talking about something else entirely all you like. Your words, which I quoted to illustrate your hypocrisy, stand for themselves.

 

Great OP. This is how I feel also. The relationships of others have no effect on me.

 

I never even remotely suggested that you did.

It's not a question of right vs. wrong, in my view, but rather a matter of simple legal parity. And again, it is not just "conservatives" who wish to deny this constitutionally-guaranteed right here in the USA--just take a look at the DOMA vote, you'll see plenty of supposed "progressives" in the yea column.

The only edge I'll give "the left" is that at least the Obama administration has proclaimed it will not defend DOMA against court challenges. But if Obama really meant it, he'd have started a move to challenge the law and have it stricken from our lawbooks. Such legislation is simply anathema to the American brand of politics and it violates some important core principles of our constitutional system.

 

Uhhhh, well, I hate to break it to you, but that law already exists. In fact, you could almost say it is the cornerstone of our federal system. Have you heard of the Full Faith and Credit clause? This is the paragraph in the Constitution that makes my California driver license legal in Texas and also makes a civil marriage executed in Florida legal in Michigan. States are already "forced" to recognize legal instruments from other states-- since about, oh I dunno, around 1789 or so. This is why some very misguided politicians crafted the DOMA back in the '90s. The net result has been a very dangerous Constitutional precedent. Can I remind you who signed that little gem into law? If you answered "Bill Clinton," you would be correct. So much for labels, eh?

For those who think laws like DOMA that restrict freedom in exchange for a little psychological comfort are a good thing, I have some advice: "careful what you wish for."

 

the supreme court of the united states disagrees with you.

 

A very good post. In an ideal world that would be the case. The problem is that to many religious what the government protecting their religious values. The government is not run by the churches or certainly should not be. This is a case where the church has far to much influence over the legislative process. Thanks for the good post.

 

If the government stayed involved in marriage at all that would be the simplest of all solutions. Any marriage provided by the a church would be a marriage. Any wedding provided by the state would be a civil union whether they are gay or not. There are some churches that do preform same sex marriages. Those would be considered marriages.

 

I address the bolded: That may well be true for you to be attracted to the opposite gender. That would be your normal. I am attracted to my own gender and would find it abnormal for me to be with someone of the opposite gender. My normal is a same sex relationship. There are two different normals.
I know that gays and lesbians are the minority but our normal reality is different than yours.

 

then it's settled; marriage is not normal to you.

marriage is between a man and a women, normally.

 

The point was made that the definition of "normal" is subjective and this rebuttal fails. Of course the US government shouldn't be concerned with and has no authority to define that which is subjectively normal. The role of the US government is to protect the Rights of the Individual.

Imposition of laws that violate the Right to Equal Protection under the Law is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The United States was founded on the ideal that the Rights of the People supercede the authority of government and it is the protection of the Rights of the Minority from the tyranny of the majority which lead to the establishment of a Constitutional Republic over tyrannical government based upon pure democracy.

 

Are any of you people "closet" homosexuals?

 

So if i want to marry my dog, to receive the tax benefits of marriage and to have her at my bedside when i die............. it is my right, right?

And if she likes peanut butter and i like it doggy style, behind closed doors, that is OUR business, right?

i agree

i agree...........


and if the sexual orientation of me liking it doggy style is my business, i can do it doggy style and bark at the moon

No wonder my dog is named G-spot............ she is now being used as a topic on sexual orientation!

 

i like it doggy style, woof!

 

When you were a priest did you use altar boys?