This betokens progress that will have homophobes advocating sharia law

or they were forced to as a social tool.... and future generations just felt the need to follow along since it was what was expected.

I still don't need .gov telling me I'm married to my wife. Even if I couldn't get tax breaks because of it.

 

The country was predominantly Christian at the time so how were Christians forced? THEY were the ones doing it.

And yet, you registered with the state why? It doesn't mean anything to you so why do it?

 

that it wasn't legit unless you did..... and I'm sure there were plenty of 'married' couples in the west that never .gov married their marraige.


probably had more to do with the tax break carrot the .gov used in order to track "married" in the US

social tradition....

 

Don't blame me for your idea's.

 

So you have confirmed that Christians did in fact look to the government to validate their marriages and they most likely did so (and do today) because of tax benefits.

I thought you said you didn't need anything else to validate your marriage? Why are you worried about social tradition?

All in all, why do you blame gays for seeking the same thing as you?

- - - Updated - - -

Just using your con logic there son.

 

Baloney. From a legal standpoint, banning recognition of same-sex marriages is exactly what happened.

Hypothetical relying on a "What if...?"

That, or a complete misrepresentation/utter fabrication. The legal criteria has not been "tossed", nor as the institution been opened up "to anyone who comes along". It has merely been opened to same-sex couples who meet the rest of the criteria that remain in place.

Maybe that's what you want to talk about. I prefer to talk about what actually took place - the banning of same-sex marriage recognition.

 

That's the thing I think we can agree on here.

I have no problem with your beliefs. They are yours, not mine, and I respect your right to have them, discuss them, make them known, or keep them private. Makes not a single bit of difference in the world to me.

If your son was a homosexual and you chose to disown him for that, that is on you and its between you and your son. Does that mean I would support or agree with that decision? No. But that's my belief and I wouldn't expect you to agree or change your position because of that. And I certainly wouldn't wish you to lose your job over it either.

Why? Because that's your private life and while I may not agree with it that is your decision.

Now if as an educator you chose to bully/degrade/taunt/ostracize a student because he/she was gay then yes you need to lose your position as an educator.

Why? Because that is an abuse of your power and position as an educator to harm a child. I'm not saying you would ever do that because I understand the separation of work and personal life that so many people maintain. I myself maintain that same two world stance working in the medical field. I have to completely disregard my personal beliefs while working in a medical setting and be blind to the other persons race, gender, sexual orientation, criminal status, nationality, personal hygiene standards, essentially everything, even if they're being a total jerk even.

I know there are some people out there who go on the offensive and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them. But that isn't all of us. Most of us just want to live a normal life, find someone we love, settle down and not have to worry about being attacked or having our own government treat us as second class citizens while we pay taxes just like everyone else.

You're perfectly welcome to have your own personal beliefs and to run your own house hold the way you see fit. Can you respect the fact that I am as well?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually you're quite mistaken. Nothing has to benefit society to be legal.

The constitutional amendment do indeed ban gay marriage.

 

so why is it ok for homosexual activists to shame kids who don't think like them


http://townhall.com/columnists/todd...agenda-shamed-in-classroom-n1955044/page/full

 

First if there was bullying going on or shaming its absolutely wrong and should never happen.

However, since there was no actual detail of what happened to bully or shame the kids I find it suspect. I also find it suspect that its an article on a known conservative hot topic site and that only two parents are complaining.

Again its inexcusable if it did happen. But I have to ask what's your point? You didn't address anything about my reply.

 

Some times in some Muslim countries...........

 

nope. Thats your faulty perspective again reframing it to suit your needs.

For SSM to be "banned" it had to at least once be available...it never was. What we are actually talking about is instating NEW guidelines, and there is absolutely no reason or benefit to society to do so.

Not at all. Your side wants to change Marriage, Im asking what Society gains from it. What benefit to society is there, this is not a Hypothetical, this is asking you to document why we need to fundamentaly distort an institution to fit groups that it was never intended to fit.

Which is exactly what your side wants done.

You can word it any way you like, but it still adds up the same. When you change the long defined Male/Female institution, you are tossing the criteria. And of course it has now been opened up to anyone who comes along.

Who will you now say no to, and on what grounds? If your side "wanting" it was enough to shoehorn you in, who can you possibly say no to? Are their wants not as important as yours?

Again, for something to be banned...it had to once legally exist. Same Sex Marriage Did not, so you guys are dishonestly framing your stance.

Some of us notice.

 

Do I seriously need to quote you what the law clearly says? Fine. Here is the wording of my state's amendment:

Limiting recognition exclusively to one man/one woman in marriage very obviously means the recognition of anything that isn't one man/one woman as a marriage or similar agreement is banned.

Who do you think you're kidding with this? Something can be banned to prevent it from coming into existence. It doesn't have to have "at least once" been "available". You don't get to re-write history by pretending that these amendments weren't a reaction to the lawsuit in Hawaii or the adoption of "civil unions" in Vermont, which it was feared would force other states to recognize same-sex unions.

What's more, my partner and I had a domestic partnership recognized at the county level. It very much did exist, and my state's amendment voided it and banned it from recognition - and that comes straight from the office of the Attorney General at the time - Mike Cox.

So don't even think you're going to fool anyone with this nonsense who doesn't already wish to be fooled. A ban is a ban, whether or not the thing banned previously existed.

A bold declaration without foundation. Tell me - how does society benefit from excluding same-sex couples from legal recognition of their unions? What is the reason to prevent same-sex couples from enjoying equal recognition of their marriages?

Very much so.

Loaded language. The plain fact is that laws were passed to prevent same-sex couples from having legally recognized unions. In my view, it's on the people who support that action to justify it, not the other way around.

It is a hypothetical, and I'll remind readers here exactly what you asked:

Emphasis added. You don't get to move the goalposts and claim it's not a hypothetical, when it clearly is.

I'm not going to address your loaded wording. If you can't debate honestly, then let's not at all.

Complete and utter falsehood. All the restrictions on marriage licensing that existed before, save for the restriction on gender, remain in place.

Another hypothetical. And a poor attempt to introduce a fallacious slippery slope.

Sorry, but I can't tell you the grounds for denial without any details of who is petitioning, and therefore no details on what basis under which the law denies them. Seriously not going to play this game with you or anyone else. Make an actual argument, instead of simply posing vague, empty hypothetical questions. Or don't. Silence sometimes speaks louder than actual words.

Deliberate mischaracterization. Mere desire was hardly enough to gain same-sex couples admission to the institution of marriage. You don't get to pretend that there haven't been several trials that examined the law and the facts specific to their situation.

Again, not going to address vague hypotheticals, fallacious appeals to sympathy, etc. Shrill all you like, but you're not going to get an answer from me to such ridiculous nonsense questions.

Hogwash.

Because you say so? No, I think it's pretty clear what the laws say, and what they do. They prevent same-sex couples from legal recognition of marriage. Saying that's not a ban fools no one but those who wish to be fooled. You are the one framing things dishonestly.

Some of you repeatedly demonstrate your deep bias and the incredible contortions you'll go to in order to avoid having to say anything that serves as an actual reason to prevent same-sex couples' unions from legal recognition.

Seriously, don't waste my time with a repetition of this crap.