Rhode Island legalizes Gay Marriage

It's not hard to find the irrationality in irrational arguments.

 

The page loads just fine. Considering you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*), do you really think I could care less what a man of your character thinks of me?

 

So it does. I apologize, I was having problems with my data connection earlier and that is probably why it wasn't loading. Regardless, it's largely irrelevant. No one gave me any info on fetal alcohol syndrome when my wife and I obtained our marriage license, which was in late 2011.

I am not full of (*)(*)(*)(*), you know nothing of my character, and at the end of the day your position on marriage is all hung up on your own inability to consider that homosexuals should have the same rights that you do.

 

So why not marry their dog,if they choose to?
marriage is one man,one woman....been that way for thousands of years,anything else is shacking up.

 

A dog cannot give its legal consent. Next.

 

I agree,the treatment of homosexuals has been bad,but people tend to shy away and deride the abnormal,not saying it's right,but that's how it is.
Homosexuals should be able to enter a domestic agreement with all rights any other married couple have,but they can't call it 'marriage'

 

noooo. The basis of the limitation to heterosexual couples is the fact that only a man and a woman has the potential of procreation. A father of a sexually active 18 yr old daughter doesn't hope that she would choose one partner and marry him, so she will procreate. He does so because he is concerned that she may procreate whether she is married or not. If instead it was his 18 yr old gay son who is sexually active, he doesn't have the same concerns.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

 

Ah,so what?.....Homosexuals flout the traditions of marriage at will,so whats one more?

 

Rhode Island says that they can.

- - - Updated - - -

????

Up until very recently homosexuals were unable to 'flout' the traditions of marriage at will.

Meanwhile- it is we heterosexuals who have been 'flouting' the traditions of marriage- just look at the divorce rate.

 

They both directly refute his assertion.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

And I've posted the links here 100 times in response to the 100s of times this same silly logic is used

 

That is indeed the argument you make- and the argument that the defenders of Prop 8 made- and failed with.

It is an argument crafted with the sole intent of excluding homosexual marriage.

The same people who make this argument will also argue against polygamy.

 

I disagree. I think any two people who wish to enter a domestic agreement should be able to do so. Nothing special about homosexual couples that would justify such special treatment for homosexuals.

 

Of course that is the argument I have made. Tell that to homerjay. And the court avoided the argument by declaring as fact that procreation is unrelated to marriage.

 

I agree with that also.....but calling it something it's not makes no sense.

 

is there a serious push to do so? are there any pending court cases seeking recognition?

 

and they all lived happily ever after surrounded by puppies and rainbows........<eyeroll> wake up pollyanna

 

Well, not any longer. US Supreme court, 1978, speaking to the fundamental right of marriage.

The fact that in the last 50 years all the laws prohibiting sex outside of marriage or cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex have been repealed, does nothing for your arguments about marriages limitation to heterosexual couples that is as old as the institution of marriage. As old as human civilization itself.
(*)MATRIMONY, Latin root of the word mater, MOTHER. Only women become mothers and only men are held responsible for that fact.(*)

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")(*)
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")(*)
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....(*)

Limited to heterosexual couples, NOT to EXCLUDE homosexual couples, motivated by animus towards homosexuals but instead to INCLUDE all couples with the potential of procreation.

 

A dog cannot legally consent to a contract. Neither can a minor, nor an inanimate object. Your problem isn't with people marrying dogs, though, is it?

The establishment promoted the misinformation that the world was flat for thousands of years, too. That isn't a good reason to keep believing that, either.

Marriage is a legal commitment between two consenting adults to join together as a legally recognized couple, sharing their home, their financial resources, their liabilities, and their lives together. There is no reason to limit that legal right and the legal advantages and disadvantages that it comes with to heterosexual couples.

 

My brother and I own two businesses together. A few pieces of real property jointly. We have life insurance policies on each other to help fund the buyout of the other if one of us should die. Mutual buy / sell agreements on all our business interests. Corresponding provisions in both our wills, thousands on accounting and legal fees all that would be un necessary if we were married. But the law prohibits us from marrying.
Homosexuals who want to marry their lover have the exact same rights I do. The fact that homosexuals do each other in the butt, and my brother and I do not doesn't warrant preferential treatment.

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gov-lincoln-chafee-its-not-tradition-call-it-christmas-tree
Chaffee actually has a very left-wing Christian agenda, which is why he hates the baby Jesus and loves same-sex marriage.

 

Sure there is, only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation. What there is no reason for is limiting marriage to sexual couples. Both hetero and homosexual.

 

I guess this is the response Texas makes when it doesn't have any real response to the reality:

 

No- only some heterosexual couples have potential of procreation. And homosexual couples can become parents as well as any heterosexual couple with infertility problems.

What we do know though is that homosexuals don't have any unwanted children.

Apparently marriage is only because only heterosexuals have undesired children.

 

My wife and I will both be entitled to inherit equally from each other, free from any federal inheritance tax. A homosexual couple, legally married, will have to pay federal interitance tax that my wife and I will not have to pay.

The fact that the homosexual couple happens to be two people of one gender, and my wife and I happen to be of two genders should not allow for the homosexual couple to be discriminated against.

If you want to advocate for incest laws to be repealed so you and your brother can marry- thats another issue.