can someone explain to me why Gay marriage is an issue?

No, they are awarded because only heterosexuals procreate. It is you advocating extending marriage to homosexuals, for no other reason than the fact that they are homosexuals who can never procreate.

 

How is regular marriage not a special right for heterosexuals?

 

Two incorrect statements in your short post:
1) They (I assume you are talking about heterosexuals) are awarded rights because only heterosexuals can procreate. -- This has been refuted numerous times, if procreation was a requirement then you would have an argument but since it is not (sterile and elderly couples can still wed) then your argument is false. If you are saying that people get to benefit throughout their life, through no action of their own, simply because they belong to a class of people while another class is denied these rights then that is called discrimination.
2) It is you advocating extending marriage to homosexuals, for no other reason than the fact that they are homosexuals -- No one is advocating that opposite sex couples can no longer marry, nor is anyone advocating for sexual only same sex couples to be able to marry. This would allow heterosexual same sex members to marry just as it would allow homosexual opposite sex members to marry.

Again, please state a reason why you feel that two adults cannot enter into a legally binding contract since that is all marriage is in the eyes of the state. It has nothing to do with children, it has nothing to do with consummation, it has nothing to do with religion, ect. So please, just ONE reason.

 

But they have nothing to do with procreation. Sterile/barren couples can never procreate, and you readily admit they are only awarded thousands of rights because they happen to be in a heterosexual relationship. Special rights for certain people simply because of their sexuality. Nothing you say ad nauseam alters this.

 

It is special right. When government regulates and license certain activity it means that group under regulation has special rights as well as special responsibilities.
There is valid and easily identifiable reason why relationship between man and a woman require regulation and licensing. The main logical reason is that result of such relationship affect whole society. Reasonable people would want automatically provide responsible father and mother in case if relationship between man and woman results in childbirth.
Same sex couple do not need any regulation because their sexual activity does not affect people.
Possibility to have children is fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex couples.
Since situations between two types of couples absolutely different, every type require special regulation. I.e. marriage for opposite sex couples and something else for same sex couples.

 

That is a outright fallacy. Take into consideration ANY regulation.
Regulation is established either for or against occurrence of certain events.
In case of marriage there is NO ONE can predict when where and how heterosexual couple will form, as well as NO ONE knows when where and how heterosexual couple will loose fertility.
All we know with probability of 100% that children will be born among heterosexual couple.
If government knows that certain events will affect all people, government has responsibility to facilitate positive or to prevent negative consequence of such event. That is why licensing and regulations are implemented.
In case we know that probability of event is ZERO no regulation and licensing required.

 

What are the special responsibilities that heterosexuals are required to do in order to get this "regulation" and "licensing" that same sex individuals cannot? Please do not say have babies because currently only one fifth of married households have children so surely you can not state that the other four fifths get to benefit simply in case they "may" have children, if you say yes to this then you have absolutely no integrity.
You have no argument and are just repeating the same thing over and over again with no real meaning.

 

Married man and woman automatically become parents in case of childbirth. That is their special responsibility.
Sure may be we need overhaul of our society, but it is not the reason to award special rights to homosexuals.

I have a rock solid, arguments, you just have not been able to refute them.

 

But what of the four fifths of household that do not have traditional children? They get to benefit just because? You are ignoring the question.
And are you really saying that people do not become parents if they are not wed??? Really, come on now...

And again, how is it special rights when NO ONE would be denied the same rights.

CHILDREN ARE NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR MARRIAGE, THE POTENTIAL FOR CHILDREN IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR MARRIAGE.
Marriage is a legally protective contract, that is all it is. Please show me where children or the potential for children is a requirement, I am sure you would not be as dishonest to make up claims to make a (false) point.
Refuted. Happy?

 

Large portion of the 4/5ths that dont have children, dont have them because they grew up and moved out of the home. And really not sure what your point is. I suspect 4/5ths or more of the people who government encouraged to maintain auto liability insurance in 2011, were not in an accident for which they were liable. And yet STILL the POTENTIAL of an auto accident is precisely why the government encouraged all drivers of motor vehicles to maintain liability insurance.Your argument doesnt even make sense.

 

your argument is self defeating. sterile couples(which are IDENTICAL to same sex couples)are allowed to marry. because of this, you can not deny a same sex couple the right to marriage. that's called discrimination.

 

already long ago refuted. auto liability insurance is not required by the government, nor does it have any relevance to marriage.

 

You dont have a clue. His arguments are repeated in dozens of court cases acrosst the US. Ive cited a dozen of them. Your claims that the argument is "false" or "dishonest" is meaningless. Uninformed opinions about topics you know nothing about. Got anything other than the thoughts bouncing around in your head to support your assertions?

 

Just as my arguments regarding marriage, include no requirement of procreation, my analogy to liability insurance, comtained no requirement of liability insurance. I said "encouraged to maintain auto liability insurance", not required. But you just cant resist the dash for refuge in the strawmen of your own imagination

 

You dont even read what you choose to respond to. "childbirth" is the same thing as "the child is born" Are you really this dense, or are you being dishonest?

Sure it does. In the case of heterosexual marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father of any child his wife bears. In the case of a married lesbian couple, if one of them gives birth, the other partner IS NOT presumed to be the father. Has no relation to the child. No obligation of support. In the case of married gay guys, no children are born. If one of the gay men were to get a woman pregnant, the other partner has no relation to the child. No obligation of support to the child. Marriage ONLY creates parental obligations in the csae of heterosexual couples. Never in the case of homosexual couples. Gays want all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage, and yet will never be imposed with the parental obligations created in marriage.

 

federal courts are ruling against you.

 

the govn't doesn't encourage maintaining auto liability insurance. it has no relevance to the topic.

it's your strawman not mine.

but, whine and cry away dixon. you don't fool anyone.

 

Nope. Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry, helps reduce the numbers of single mothers with dependent children to raise on their own, and increase the number of children with the benefit of both their mother and father together, to provide and care for the child. Encouraging homsexuals to marry does not. Makes as much sense as some gay boy taking his man, up his butt, taking birth control pills so they can feel just like a normal heterosexual couple. And government providing the same subsidies they provide for birth control pills for women, also to these men, to avoid offending the gays delicate sensibilities. Absurd.

 

A slippery slope argument is usually a falacious argument indeed, unless you actually fall into a slippery slope. Gay used to mean "happy". Now it means homosexual. Homosexual used to mean mentally ill, now it means "alternative lifestyle". Marriage as a legal term means a union between a man and a woman, and it still does. Mentally ill homosexuals and their accomplices will not stop until they have redefined marriage, destroyed the family structure of society, and the right of the public to exercise their first amendment right to excercise their freedom of religion. This is not about giving rights to homosexuals, they are entitled to every right that heterosexuals enjoy. This is about redefining marriage. Civil unions just won't do for these extremists. Because if they can codify same sex marriage into law, then they can adopt and raise children in order that they can encourage homosexuality in the children, and so that they can molest them (see Michael Jackson). Once they have codified it into law, they can then sue churches who refuse to marry them, accept their sins as normal behavior, and slowly disassemble the denominations throughout the country by having their designations as religious organizations revoked by law. It is already happening in the state of Massachussettes where the Catholic church is no longer allowed to offer adoptive services.

The Constitution does not contain the phrase, "seperation of church and state". Instead it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

Children are not requirement for marriage, that is right. Because such requirement is impossible to implement. It is impossible for the simple reason that children are expected after marriage not before.

What is required though for marriage to exist is one man and one woman.

 

This is the literary equivalent of placing your hands on your ears and screaming "NAHNAHNAHHHNONOTLISTENINGGGG!!!!". Ridiculous.

Like I said, you advocate rights for heterosexuals simply because they are heterosexual. Not all heterosexuals procreate, thus not all need regulating. Therefore as long as marriage is being denied to same-sex couples, it would be unconstitutional to allow identically situated sterile/barren couples 1000's of rights simply because they are heterosexual. It's so blatant, and the facts are presented to you oh so clearly and concisely, yet you just choose to ignore them in almost a juvenile way...

You'd be smart at this point to say you "don't think marriage should be extended to sterile couples", but instead you argue for the status quo in this laughably hypocritical fashion. It's really quite amazing to watch you unravel, showing your "argument" for what it really is... A hypocritical mess that's going to get slammed in the federal courts.