Nah, truly irrelevant... and you (should) KNOW it. You're like the guy who wants to convince others of something they already know intuitively... but won't give up on the effort. At the very least, we disagree.
You dont even know what the topic is. If we made the statute gender neutral § 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A person is presumed to be the parent of a child if: (1) the person is married to the parent of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....... A kid could end up with 4 parents. Would obligate people with no connection whatsoever to the child to support that child. And give them rights over that same child. Cant make all the laws gender neutral, because gender is central to marriage, and gender is not neutral.
Prove a positive. The existance of even one same sex marriage from 1776-1970s. Before and after the 70s, the mere use of the word "marriage", prohibited same sex marriage.
Yes. I too have heard various rhetoric, theories and propaganda; meanwhile, all I've seen are people, who are normal, typical, common in every way as others. The only strong "agenda" I've witnessed is related to homosexuals and their advocates pushing for equal protections/rights under U.S. laws. Of course, there are those who WISH to see the hatred and irrational animus which is very often perpetrated against homosexuals, continue to be or further embraced by our laws. Now that the trend is for laws to recognize and respect the individual (regardless of sexual-orientation), there certainly seems to be some form of an ANTI-GAY agenda, which purposefully amplifies the MYTH of some particularly sinister gay agenda. And the only way to counter that, has been to more strongly advocate for the very equality mentioned above. After all, THAT is the primary goal of the majority of people who are homosexual (and those who advocate for the same). But there is no mass movement to diminish or minimize the rights of those who disagree with homosexuality; that simply doesn't exist. But anyone who sees a PUSH for equality, is seeing something that NO homosexual would deny or necessarily shy away from; in that sense, it is no different than any other struggle for rights we are all historically familiar with in the U.S. The "gay agenda" as many anti-gay opponents refer to it these days, is nothing more than a re-treading of criticism which are custom constructed to vilify homosexual people in general. There is no doubt about that, when one examines the broader views of those who evoke the mention of that 'illusive' and nebulous "gay agenda". Yes, it is very difficult (even other than efficacious) to see such a struggle, as a negative thing; yet, there are those who in their animus against homosexuality and homosexuals in general. Considering that, there is no conspiracy, wonder or mystery about those made-up negatives (such as the "gay agenda") at all.
Heterosexual couples are treated differently because only heterosexual couples procreate. Extending this treatment to homosexual couples would be by definition inequality. And if instead we want to encourage marriage to encourage the formation of stable households, there is no rational basis for limiting marriage to sexual couples. Birds dont pair off into couples made up of a male and female, to build a nest, in order to have sex. They do so deal with the product of those heterosexual relationship. Offspring. Platonic couples, closely related couples and same sex couples can just as well build a nest to sit upon.
We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited.http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/bakrvnel.htm
The next time someone asks about or complains concerning the alleged "gay agenda"... please remind them of the above. It explains the equal rights that MANY are adamantly fighting for.
still not showing where a law existed prior to the 1970's banning same sex marriage. put down the shovel dixon.
nope. you cited no law that existed prior to the 1970's banning same sex marriage. this is because no such law existed.
It's all going to be challenged, in due time. The point is, the fight is on to revise/repeal unjust laws such as those you refer to in order to attempt to justify your points. Enjoy the comfort of believing what you do; things are changing.
The concept of marriage between two people of the same gender is so preposterous that the very concept wasn't even a consideration. Who would even think up something like that? The concept of a person disliking heterosexual relations because they preferred homosexual relations is quite recent as well. Homosexuality has existed for far longer than the strange idea of "exclusively homosexual". Maybe we should start to think about other types of marriage that the law has never considered, such as marriage between a person and an animal. That's not a crazy idea, it happens in India today. Should the original lawmakers have said something like "marriage is exclusively between two living humans of the opposite gender"? Would that be specific enough or have I failed to think of yet other ways to misuse the term "marriage"?
Okay... and the marriage of Blacks and Whites was "preposterous" as well; of course. Look (and you should KNOW this by now)... human beings do not know everything, and they change as they learn. Not only that, but religion has a terrible effect when it comes to restricting or affecting people basic rights; there is nothing mysterious or new about that. It is 2011; gay marriage isn't "preposterous" and it is time to review and/or repeal certain 'laws'
You are correct that human beings don't know everything. Most of my concern about society going "off the reservation" because of one depravity or another has passed for the time being until the next group makes their big push (looks like the pedophiles are next). Thanks to science, the Born Gay Hoax is over and the damage, especially in terms of public policy, will eventually be repaired, i.e. no marriage based on whatever "turns you on" today be it people of your same gender, animals, children, or inanimate objects etc. Now let's get to your flame of all religions in the history of mankind. Certainly they all condemn homosexuality equally but I doubt you care what the Hindus or Muslims do. Do you belong to the organized religion known as Atheism? Is your whole extended rant really just about being a Christian Hater, which is what the contemporary Atheist religion has finally been exposed to be?
The point is that youll need to repeal laws that have been in existance since the beginning of our nation, not just those enacted since 1973.
