Gays can already get married in all 50 states and everywhere abroad.

Nobody is denying homosexuals the right to get married. I'm so sick of hearing about "gay marriage." Never in the history of America has a homosexual been denied the right to get married. If a homosexual man wants to get married nothing is stopping him from doing so but HIMSELF. He isn't attracted to women so he refuses to get married on his own initiative.

Marriage = M + F.

Homosexuals can get married anytime they want. Lesbians can marry, homosexual men can marry. Nobody, no state, no religion, no law, has ever prevented them from doing so. The only people who refuse to get married are the very people who are complaining that nobody will let them get married.

What homosexuals are fighting for is for the nation and all of its people to redefine marriage so that it means nothing, or so that it means nothing more than a union between two any people, which is not what marriage is.

The entire argument for "gay marriage" is an argument meant to redefine (destroy) the institution of marriage. So let's start framing the argument correctly. They want to destroy marriage and redefine it completely.

If a gay man wants to get married, to a gay woman, or a straight woman, or any other kind of woman, nothing in the United States of America is preventing them from doing so.

Arguing otherwise is like me converting to Islam and then complaining that Muslims aren't allowed to be Catholic Priests and fighting for the "right" of Muslim men to be Catholic Priests in the name of equality.

FACT: A gay man can get married.
FACT: A lesbian can get married.

 

Right, right.

Same old played out argument.

They already can get married, as long as it is who we want them to marry.

Sorry, but gays aren't given equal rights.

They are forbidden to marry the person of their choosing. Except for in six state, which just happen to disagree with you and allow gays to marry the person of their choosing.

 

It's the perfect equal protection argument. There is nothing unconstitutional about it since gays have exactly the same rights to marry as straights.

Nobody has the right to marry the person of their choosing by the way...

 

oh o o, what's gov got to do, got to do wit it?

Give him a ring and breakfast in bed. Screw your marriage benefits.

 

No actually it's not, sorry.

Gay couples are denied the protections of marriage for their families while heterosexuals enjoy them.

No matter how you try to spin it, that is not equal protection.

 

I want to make sure I understand this.

You are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage....that you advocate Gay men and Lesbians have marriages of convenience, that have nothing to do with them being a couple, or a family, or raising children.

Interesting. Of course quite a few gays do that now, just to be able to get benefits that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get.

Then there are the seniors who don't get married because of the benefits they will lose if they do get married- theirs is the opposite- it is a sham non-marriage.

Anyway- thanks for the amusing thought. You would prefer Gay people to have sham marriages with people they don't care for, than marriages to people they do care for.

I suppose you also support sham marriages of Americans marrying foreigners- just to get them green cards too? I mean as long as they are a man and a woman marrying just for a commercial purpose- that of course must be superior to a man marrying a man because they love each other, and want to be partners both legally and personally for the rest of their lives.

Anyway- novel argument.

Sham marriages are better than Gay marriages.

 

No, I didn't say anything about families; and I assume you mean that in the broadest sense. Legally, marriage laws don't violate the equal protection clause because the exact same conditions and restrictions apply to gay and straight a like.

 

He can get married, but the marriage will not be legally recognized, nor we he and his partner recieve the same economic rights. That is what gays fight for.

 

All true points. The "gays can't get married" argument is a fallacy. But like most fallacies, it is repeated so often that most people just parrot it without stopping to examine it first. Homosexuals have the same rights as anybody else. They simply want to redefine the law because they don't like the way it is currently structured. And as others have pointed out on here, arbitrarily redefining the law for one special interest group is nothing more than discriminating against all the other groups who will still not be able to use marriage as they want.

 

Militant gays annoy me and will never have my support. Bottom line.

The Church doesn't accept gay marriage and I support the Church.
The Bible doesn't condone gay marriage and I support the Bible.

 

Not like I expect you to care...but I was impressed with your posts, untill now.

I propose we make a change to the law, which we are free to do, and is done quite often. Some traditions suck, like bloodletting.

Marriage = 1 Adult + 1 Adult

As long as a marriage does not put one of it's participants in an inferior state, and the parties are of legal age, who really cares.

I don't believe the protection of marriage argument at all.

It's very simple...all people who dissagree with gay marriage do so for the one or more of following reasons.

1. Thier relgion tells them it's wrong

2. The thought of, or sight of gay males kissing makes them feel icky.

3. They oppose it because to be a righty.

 

The Communist goal was to eliminate marriage and raise children in state institutions, with parents having no input.

That is the goal homosexuals and other liberals still work towards today.

If you want a roadmap of where liberals are taking this country, read old papers written by the Communists. It's all there in black and white.

 

The Bible and Church also don't support or condone adultery or sex outside of marriage.

Should those be illegal?

 

Agreed on all counts.

I have heard this argument many times, including by Bachmann.

I can't believe that people see this as a legitimate argument. Gay people like people of their own sex... Do you people still not get it? A gay man will never be able to marry their lover, their soul mate, because it grosses some people out or it's against their religious beliefs.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RenwNhL1Te0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RenwNhL1Te0[/ame]

 

If you're willing to redefine marriage now what's to stop someone else from redefining it again? How about Adult + Adult + Adult = Marriage? Or Adult + Animal = Marriage? You disagree? The idea of a man marrying a horse is for you unsettling? Why? Because the bible tells you it's wrong, the thought of a man having intercourse with a horse makes you feel icky, or because opposing it is (not sure what this even means) "righty"? Redefining marriage to mean anything other than Man + Woman destroys the institution of marriage forever. It opens the door to everyone and anyone to complain about what marriage it.

You are aware that the entire argument for "gay marriage" was nothing more than an attempt to create a new political constituency out of a sexual orientation, yes? You are also aware that the radical left has wanted to destroy marriage since the late 19th / early 20th century, yes?

And you now believe the push to redefine marriage as Adult + Adult is unrelated to this aim? Were I to look deep enough into it I would no doubt find this argument was thrust into the mainstream by people who aren't even gay.

It's little more than rabble rousing.

The argument to "redefine marriage" is nothing more than a push to destroy marriage - one more of a long list of fronts against western civilization with the ultimate goal of destroying it.

 

When you have a horse propose to a human and they both write their wedding vows, I will consider this argument legitimate.

 

My political stance on gay marriage is from a Constitutional perspective rather than a social perspective. I see federal government definitions of marriage as an infringment upon a reserved power, marriage requirements. This is one reason why I am opposed to DOMA. The other reason is that DOMA improperly nullifies the full faith and credit clause. Congress has a right to apply that part of the Constitution as they see fit. Denying Congress that right is trampling upon our founding document based upon the Supremacy Clause which lists the Constitution first, indicating that it is the supreme law of the land.

 

I oppose any measure to redefine marriage for the following reasons:
a. It legitimizes an abnormal sexuality and makes it the equal of what is normal. There is absolutely no reason for society to yield to a sexual preference.

b. It is clearly an attack on civilization by the radical Marxist left. That is where the argument's origin resides, not with `oppressed` homosexuals.

Again, it's like a Muslim claiming unfairness for not being allowed to be a Catholic Priest.

Nobody is saying someone cannot be gay but when homosexuals demand the majority redefine what they are (married) so they can include themselves via redefinition, the majority is right and just in telling them, for lack of a better way of putting it, to go straight to hell and if they don't like it that's too bad.

 

Excelent post. excelent point. I've always thought, what is this buzz about gays married? what is the problem? there is no problem, it is an invented problem, to play victims. I have nothing against gays, but this scenario super reminds me of my two beautiful dogs: they always compete who has the stick: and when one has the stick and no one is paying attention to it, he starts squealing and acting and growling at the other one still, as if it is trying to steal the stick, just to start crap. out of boredom. it is comical to watch, i should video tape it. gay thing is identical. so is the struggle in the middle east, only on a more serious scale.

 

This is where your argument dies completely. Nowhere in the dictionary did this exist until politicians used laws to add it. Laws don't make words. That's like making a law changing the meaning of "apple" or "orange".

Marriage is a promise between people. Even now the dictionaries have definitions that don't hold it to M +F.

 

The statement that: "Nobody is denying homosexuals the right to get married" ....is utter nonsense.

It is as ridiculous as saying that: "Nobody is denying that apples are chairs".

Anyone uttering a statement that is so farfetched and outa touch with REALITY is tantamount to the fact that he/she must be delusional or insane.

Since most abnormals, i.e., queers are not usually delusional or insane (although they act as though they are) ..... one can only assume that, even if publicly they may support such an idiotic statement to advance their PC CRAPPOLA ..... they could not possibly believe that obvious nonsense, unless, of course, they are delusional or insane.

 

That's not quite true. If a gay black male wanted to marry a white woman, in 17 states he couldn't before 1967.

 

A Muslim claiming unfairness for not being allowed to be a Catholic Priest is a totally different thing. It would be more like a Muslim coming here then the GOVERNMENT saying that they have the right to be religious just like everyone else... Only problem is that only Catholic churches are allowed and he would have to be a Christian in order to attend church or his mosque. Being a Muslim, this man would obviously refuse to change his ways and become a Christian in order to go to church or a mosque.
But this man has the same rights as everyone else. He can practice religion however he pleases, but he can not go to a mosque and get the same benefit as Christians because he is a Christian - he is a Muslim.

Same-sex marriage has been around way before Karl Marx's great-grandfather was born.

What is wrong with homosexuality? And what is wrong with being different? Should a man that is infertile not be allowed to marry because he is unable to produce offspring?

 

Right. Why do I feel like you just made my point for me? Unless I'm reading this wrong you're agreeing. A homosexual is free to be a homosexual but if he wants to get married he'll have to marry a woman. Being homosexual, he won't marry a woman, but he still has the same rights as everyone else. He can have sex with whoever he wants, vote however he wants, but he cannot get married because he refuses to on his own accord.

You basically just said exactly what i've been saying.

 

The conclusion by the obviously abnormal person (in more ways than one) is patently incorrect.

There are difference even between NORMAL people as to what they may or may not do, examples: policemen are permitted to perform certain duties, licensed surgeons are permitted to carry out certain operations, etc., which other people are not permitted to do.

Naturally, abnormals are not, OR, SHOULD NOT be allowed to do certain things: marriage between themselves is one of them ....... however, because of the PC CRAPPOLA they are.

And, that is patently wrong.