Utah Legalises Same-Sex Marriage One Day After NM.

Let's put it this way. . .if marriage is not a right, it is not a right for anyone. If it is a right, it is a right for everyone.

And, the Supreme court has ruled that MARRIAGE is a CIVIL RIGHT protected by the 14th amendment.

If you don't like it. . .go ahead and start the proceeding to change the judgement. Until then. . .go play with those who care about your bigoted stand. I'm not interested in playing games with you. I believe I already mentioned that before, several times.

 

Absolutely. Because marriage is not a right.

I suppose I should clarify (AGAIN as I've already stated this multiple times). Anybody can get married anywhere... in any city in any county in any state in this country. Nobody is going to stop two homosexuals or two black people or a white and black person, an incestuous couple, or even a guy that wants to marry his cat or his sofa. All of them can have a ceremony give each other rings, say vows, in front of all their friends and family, kiss, go on a honeymoon and live happily ever after.

The issue here is not marriage. The issue here is marriage BENEFITS. I've said this so many times I was hoping I wouldn't have to say it again... obviously I do.

Now answer my question. If you're claiming we have the ability to prohibit incestuous couples from being married then what would be the difference in denying marriage to interracial couples?

You see, unlike you folks... I'm not a hypocrite in what I believe.

- - - Updated - - -

So why am I a bigot but people who believe incestuous couples shouldn't get married are?

 

Can you provide the link to a case of a father and daughter or a mother and son going to court to have the right to marry each other and the decisions made by that court, including, obviously, the appeals, and the whole history all the way to the Supreme court.

If you can't do that, and if you have only a couple of "anecdotal" articles to show that your point isn't moot.. . . why don't you start your own court case.

By the way. . .does your mother know you would like to marry her?

 

I'm not using any argument at all. You asked why they were prohibited. I gave you a list of current laws as to why. I even said at the end of my post that if all factors were mitigated, let em get married. I don't care. It makes not one damn bit of difference to me at all.

One more time, that has nothing to do with same sex couples getting married. But you obviously care very much about same sex couples getting married. And you have not been able to give one damn good reason why not.

And to restrict a right to anyone, you have to be able to give good reason why. That's how the US works.

 

It has everything to do with it. IF marriage is a right, then there is NO justifiable reason to deny a group marriage while providing it to another. Period.

- - - Updated - - -

Not a problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/25stepdaughter.html?fta=y&_r=0

Now what's your excuse?

Does your mom know that you're a homosexual?

Here's you another one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muth_v._Frank

 

What benefits are you talking about specifically? I know what's coming, but do this for me anyway.

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

That's just a small list but has some of the more expensive benefits. Nearly all of the benefits provided through marriage are paid for either directly or indirectly by the rest of the citizens of this country.

I wouldn't have a problem giving them all of the benefits that aren't paid for by the rest of us, either directly or indirectly. For instance, I wouldn't care if they have the right to visit their spouse in intensive care at a hospital. However, I most certainly do care that I have to support their lifestyle by providing healthcare insurance to the spouse of a gay guy who never worked a day in his life.

- - - Updated - - -

I dont think we should be paying married couples anything. The gov should not appropriate money from one group to support another group. If you are going to do so however you better have a damn good reason for doing so. So why are we giving money to married couples? We do so because it provides an environment that is conducive to the creation of children or revenue streams for society.

Now I'd like to point out why Heteros get those benefits that homosexuals should not. Lets take two couples. We will call them Hetero Couple and Homo Couple. BOTH couples will take more out of the system in the form of marriage benefits than they put into the system to help pay for those benefits. To make the numbers easy to understand... Lets say BOTH couples take out $200,000 in marriage benefits and they both put in $100,000 in taxes. That means BOTH Hetero and Homo couple are net negative $100,000. The difference is that Homo couple is incapable of reproduction in and of themselves. So when they die their revenue stream ends as being net negative. Now Hetero couple is net neg $100,000 as well however they produced 4 children. Two of those children got married and two did not. The two that did not get married pay $50,000 into the system making up for the $100,000 that their parents were in the whole. The other two children get married and have more children and so on and so forth. That revenue stream that was created by the heterosexuals could theoretically be worth trillions of dollars to society and last for thousands of years. THAT is why we provide benefits.

Now this brings up a couple reasonable questions. First gay couples can adopt. Of course they can. But we are not paying for the RAISING of the revenue stream, we are paying for the CREATION of those revenue streams. Anyone can raise a child, straight or gay or single parent or a grandparent... Hell even wolves and monkeys have shown they are capable of raising a child to adulthood. But the ONLY relationship that is capable of CREATING human children is the heterosexual relationship. Another thing, history has shown unequivocally that once the child or revenue stream is created that over time (even if one is a sociopath) the revenue stream will be overall beneficial to the economy.

Now why do we provide benefits to sterile couples or to really old people who get married? We do so because it is costly, inefficient sand ultimately ineffective to test every couple to see if they're sterile or have become sterile every year or if they're just choosing not to have children. It is not economically feasible to test. So we choose to provide the entire group (heterosexual married couples) for the POTENTIAL of child creation. A potential that homosexuals in and of themselves do not provide. Therefore they do not qualify.

If you feel as though sterile or old couples or anyone else who receives benefits should not have them, that is fine and perfectly understandable. However, with that being said, you ONLY have a legitimate argument as to why certain heterosexual groups should not receive those benefits but you absolutely no legitimate argument WHATSOEVER as to why homosexuals SHOULD receive those benefits.

 

Why do you think I should support your "lifestyle" (what does that even mean?)? Will you give me a tax break so I don't have to?

Do you think gay people do not pay taxes?

 

Because without heterosexual couples reproducing you wouldn't be here and neither would any other homosexual and more importantly our entire society and humankind would die off if it weren't for the benefit that heterosexuals were providing. That's why you should pay.

This is not even mentioning the trillions upon trillions of dollars that heterosexual reproduction eventually creates for society. In fact... you OWE them.

 

You do realize that homosexuals reproduce and raise families, yes? I mean, we do it mainly by adopting the kids you throw away or through artificial insemination, but we do raise kids. And we most certainly reproduce, just not in the same way you do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Also, seems to me you like entitlements then. Thought you conservatives hated those.

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a homosexual couple to reproduce. Impossible. The ONLY way a homosexual couple can reproduce is to go OUTSIDE of their homosexual relationship and take advantage of the heterosexual relationship (at least on some level, ie egg and sperm). That's why I've said time and time again that it is impossible for homosexuals to reproduce in and of themselves.

And if you'd read the post I made...

First gay couples can adopt. Of course they can. But we are not paying for the RAISING of the revenue stream, we are paying for the CREATION of those revenue streams. Anyone can raise a child, straight or gay or single parent or a grandparent... Hell even wolves and monkeys have shown they are capable of raising a child to adulthood. But the ONLY relationship that is capable of CREATING human children is the heterosexual relationship. Another thing, history has shown unequivocally that once the child or revenue stream is created that over time (even if one is a sociopath) the revenue stream will be overall beneficial to the economy.

 

What the hell are you even talking about? Having kids through artificial insemination is creating another child. Whether that kid is raised by two lesbians or two gay men is irrelevant. Is leaving a kid in foster care beneficial to the revenue stream? Are you kidding me? BTW- here's some stats for you:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sex-co...es-quarter-raising-children/story?id=13850332

That's a hell of a lot of kids. I'd say you owe us the same amount of protection you get. To say that our families deserve less is beyond s*****y.

 

Yeah but YOU didn't create the child. The child was created by a man and a woman. You had to forsake your homosexual relationship to take advantage of the heterosexual relationship because YOU can't create children. And again... we are paying for the CREATION of the child.

 

I'm sorry, how does artificial insemination involve anyone taking advantage of a heterosexual relationship? And yes, I can create a child without ever having sex with a woman. It's pretty easy, and I've been asked to do it before. Cumming in a cup is not a heterosexual relationship.

With regard to adoption, we're paying for your "mistakes". Which is a hideous way to ever refer to a kid. But many times, that's what you all do. You don't pay to raise the kid, we do.

 

Polygamy is completely separate issue.


But I see no reason why polygamy shouldn't be legal. It would certainly be trickier to enact, with taxes and what not. Polygamists should certainly fight for the ability to marry more than one partner, but again that is a separate issue.

 

... Really? Did your parents not have the talk with you? Maybe that's your problem.

You see when two people want to make a baby. They must have two essential things. They must have sperm and they must have an egg. Men cannot produce eggs and women cannot produce sperm. To have a baby you must put an egg and a sperm together. Considering that you must have a woman for an egg and a male for a sperm then by definition, you are taking advantage of the heterosexual relationship to produce a child.

 

The right wing bigots are foaming at the mouth, I can hear it.

 

It is impossible for infertile couples to reproduce.

Oops, did I just use your poorly thought argument and apply it to heterosexual couples?

 

I think people should be able to love and marry who they want. I am not gay but I would not like to be told I could not make a life with whom ever I chose to love. I feel you really can't be for freedom if you don't give freedom to every one even if you don't believe in the life. I believe in live and let live. If every one believed this way I think we could have peace on earth.

 

Not true I am one of those right wingers. Bigots come in all shapes and sizes. I know a few lefties that are foaming at the mouth over this subject. It is all in the way you feel about the subject..

 

Cumming in a cup is not a heterosexual relationship. It's cumming in a cup that a doctor later injects into a female. I never had to touch a woman or have a relationship with her to have that done.

Your arguments are crap. We have kids, we have families. Some adopt, some make new ones. Either way, your argument fails.

 

I think you need to go look up the definition of relationship because clearly you don't understand what it is.

 

NOPE! It is ABSOLUTELY NOT necessary to have a heterosexual RELATIONSHIP to produce a child.

All that is needed is anonymous sperm, meeting anonymous egg in an even more anonymous setting.

Maybe your parents didn't know all the medical technology advances when they talked to you about "the bird and the bee!"