What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2?

You didnt read that exerpt either. Wasnt based upon that at all.

 

Go ahead and quote me ever saying marriage should ONLY be extended to homosexuals.
And nowhere in the 6 states with same sex marriage, including the cali case you just cited lol, is there a requirement of homosexuality in order to marry someone of the same sex

 

And yet, our arguments are defeating yours in federal court.

And neither of us have ever said to extend marriage to gays only, but feel free to continue. To make yourself look foolish by claiming we have

 

Nope, no requirement to be gay. Try again

 

Cant, just countless instances of you arguing for marriage to be extended to homosexuals and the complete absence of ever arguing it be extended to anybody else.

 

??? Requirement? Im not saying the courts created a requirement of being gay to marry. The courts determined, that only when marriage is witheld from gay couples, is it a violation of the constitution. And that for states to correct that, they must include gays.

 

we're in the gay and lesbian forum. If you want to talk about marrying your brother, start a thread in the proper place, and I'll fight for your right to marry your brother.

and, nowhere have I argued for marriage to be extended to homosexuals ONLY.

 

still wrong. try again.

 

Did I say it was your most recent excerpt? Nope, was just giving an example of an irrelevant case you've cited multiple times across multiple topics..

 

Perhaps I didnt make myself clear, It wasnt based upon that in any case I have ever cited.

 

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license...Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

Feel free to present ANY contradictory evidence other than the thoughts bouncing around in that head of yours.

 

I bolded, and increased the size of the portion which defeats your argument.

nothing there about extending marriage only to homosexuals because they're homosexual. sexuality actually plays no part in who can marry. two straight men can marry. a gay man and a lesbian woman can marry. all that happened is the gender restriction has been removed.


put down the shovel

 

No, the part that defines who it is that must be treated on an "equal basis", that defeats yours.

 

Many know my position on this, but I will repeat and clarify.

Marriage is a religious institution and as such should be left to them and not be conducted or overseen by the government. Couples seeking to be bound together before God should seek a church, but if couples seek to bound together before a government of man then they should be given a civil union wherein they can receive their tax exemptions and ability to insure one another.

 

How many more rights does this hysterical 'I want more,I'm never satisfied' group want? I say enough is enough! Very soon they will want Gov't funded nannies for their artifically breed children?

 

Religion has no monopoly on marriage.

Indeed, one need not have religion to be married, nor ever enter a church.

Marriage in the US is a secular institution and has been one for decades.

 

I wasn't aware that fighting for the same rights as everyone else was being "never satisfied."

Moreover heterosexual couples receive aid for child care...why would homosexual not receive the same treatment?

 

That's what I have a problem with. Civil unions can be used as a secular institution and with the government. Marriage should be a religious institution. That's why I spelled it out for you.

 

nonsense. marriage wasn't extended to "gays" it was extended to "same sex couples". You don't have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex, just like you don't have to be straight to marry someone of the opposite sex. All that happened was the gender restriction was removed.

 

carefull, your bigotry is showing.

 

Gay people and their supporters will NEVER be satisfied until they have the rights that have already been established in neighbouring states. Cat's been let out of the bag and it certainly won't be going back in. Not ever.

 

You really have no clue. Marriage is limited to a man and a woman in California

 

???? Heterosexual couples who are obligated by law to support their children receive aid for childcare. Just as homosexual couples who are obligated by law to support their children are given aid. But, like Ive said 100 times, marriage ONLY creates parental obligations in the case of heterosexual couples and never creates them in the case of homosexual couples. Its that biology thing. Heterosexual couples are the only type of couple who physically has the ability to procreate. Gay man can never give birth and a lesbian can never father a child. Homosexual couples bring each other to orgasm. Heterosexual couples procreate and perpetuate the human species. The fact that gay couples can bring each other to an orgasm, REALLY HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the process of "child care"

 

This argument also applies to sterile couples as well as elderly couples yet they are still allows to marry. Please state your reasoning on this.

If they simply get to benefit because they belong to the heterosexual group then this is discrimination based on sexual orientation. I await your lack of response since this has been asked 200 times.

 

You really have no clue. Marriages performed for same sex couples are legally recognized by the state. Please pick up a 6th grade civics book, so you can understand the judicial system in this country