Why is fighting gay marriage such a big issue for many of you?

Thats exactly what they are doing. Only two people are obligated by law upon the birth of a child. The woman who gave birth and the man that caused her to do so. Presumed to be the husband if she is married. The institution of marriage is a preference for men and women to provide and care for THEIR children together, as opposed to the alternative of doing so apart, or not at all. It is this preference for the nuclear family that is now deemed unconstitutional. Because gay couples cant procreate. Just like platonic couples cant procreate. Closely related couples shouldnt procreate. Now in these states, two gay guys are given equal preference to biological parents when it comes to child rearing. While the single mother and grandmother raising their 3 children/grandchildren are some how not worthy of the governmental preferences given to people that rub their genitals with each other.

 

Just like you dont like mothers and grandmothers who join together to raise their children/grandchildren I guess. Do you find them offensive or is this just some old testament prohibition that is too deeply engrained within you?

 

I am tired of your BS. I will go over one more time and that is it. You can lie all you want after this post.

In post #679, it was “You believe gays create other gays without any proof.”

In post #694, it was changed to: “You believe gays [cannot] create other gays without any proof.”

Latter it was changed to: 'You believe gays [cannot] create other gays without any proof'.” (me) meaning now that you said what you were claiming I said earlier.

Get a life if you think wasting time on games here is funny. And pitiful if you think devious subtle changes are okay.

 

But a single mother and grandmother are of the "same gender", and yet they are prohibited from marriage. THATS why they specify "gay marriage". Just as every court case creating gay marriage has only found the denial of marriage to "gay" couples to be a violation of the constitution, requiring those states to create "gay marriage" to correct the perceived violation. Probably why weve had these several states recently enact "gay marriage" by legislation or referendum. The people hear the claim, repeated again and again that the denial of "gay marriage" is some kind of violation of constitutional rights, after a while they start to believe it. They never hear about all the court cases that upheld the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexual couples.

 

Please read DivineComedy's insult above your post. It pertains to you.

Surrogate mothers are not obligated but they can try for some rights. It is not about two people's obligations to a child that they will use to decide the cases.

Legal obligations for a child can be one woman or one man or a man and a woman or two men or two women. All that is decided by the circumstance of the birth. You must only use the missionary position because you think that children only come from a man and a woman "doing it".

 

Leading questions that are not supported at all by the discussion will be responded to when appropriate, and when it is obviously a lack of ability to read, or appears to be an attempt at distortion, or trolling, I will not hesitate to say what needs to be said.

It is quite obvious to me that your post to me where you said, “Thanks for the civil response. It is refreshing on these boards,” was due to your own actions with regard to others. I have no doubt whatsoever that you would be incapable of seeing that another person being uncivil is simply a natural response to your actions.

This is not correct:

“Latter it was changed to: ‘You believe gays [cannot] create other gays without any proof'.’ (me)”

This is what I said:

No, after years of debating the issue and Homos saying they were born that way, I strongly suspect there is a genetic component, and there is an opposite to what you said, “You believe gays [cannot] create other gays without any proof.”

That is what I said. Operative words are “an opposite to what.” So what you have there is an exact opposite to what you said. And I said it was “an opposite to what you said.”

 

If I am going to be uncivil I will do it on my own. And only to those that deserve it. He has not deserved it yet.

 

Semantics. Nobody is changing the prohibitions still in placed. I guess that I will have to extend why "gay marriage" is used. How about "marriage where two unrelated people have the same gender and are of legal age". See why it is easier to just say "gay marriage".

 

The ones that tried basically just proved my point that they are hypocrites. Giving me arguments like, "I believe in equal rights for all so it does affect me." Arguments like that concede that this issue only affects them indirectly which makes them no different than the people they are criticizing who feel the same way about their beliefs.

 

Nope, only a man and woman is obligated by the birth of a child. Any obligation to anyone other than those two people, can only be voluntarily assumed by someone else.

 

Why only unrelated couples? Constitutional law requires more that a simple declaration of the distinction used to discriminate. That distinction must be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. These court cases are declaring the fostering of stable homes to be the new governmental interest served by marriage that includes gay marriage. What rational relation does being unrelated have to do with the need or ability to form a stable home? The mother and grandmother down the street have been building a stable home for their 3 children/grandchildren for over a decade now.

 

Hmmm? I've never once said anything about mothers and grandmothers. Where are you even getting this from, and why do you think I would have a problem with mothers and grandmothers getting together to raise children?

 

Problem is, there's a huge glaring difference between the two groups here. One group is not trying to use the law, or at least supporting the use of it, to discriminate against people who "indirectly" affect them. The other very much is. What matters is your intent to use the law to reinforce your own prejudices, not that only people directly affected by same-sex marriage should be allowed to have a say. If that were the case, then ONLY those interested in actually getting a same-sex marriage should be allowed to comment, since it's pretty much only them who are directly affected by it.

The other glaring difference is that one side will concede that it doesn't affect them directly(same-sex marriage will not change my life in any way) while the other side constantly insists it will, but never seems to be able to show how in a tangible way.

 

Simply stated any prohibitions against mother marrying grandmother negates a Gay right to marry; leave it to the legislatures.

 

No, its quite clearly and specifically directed at you.

 

Well, regardless of what somebody's opinions is on this gay marriage issue, its a very sensitive issue that brings about many passionate views on both sides. This is why this is some very important issue for some people.

 

No, prohibitions against the mother and grandmother are perfectly constitutional when marriage is limited to heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate. Mother and grandmother cant procreate. Any couple of the same sex cant procreate. And a mother and grandfather shouldnt procreate because of the potential genetic effects.
Its extending marriage to gay couples who cant procreate, that makes the continuance of the exclusion of closely related couples unconstitutional.

 

Oh get off of your high horse. Sweden has had same sex unions for some time now. ONE HALF OF ONE % of all new marriages are gay marriages. You want the tiniest expansions of marriage to include the rare gay couple that wishes to marry, while continuing all other exclusions that dont effect gays. You use irrational discrimination to help gays feel better about themselves while we use rational discrimination to improve the wellbeing of children who only result from heterosexual couplings.

 

Why should gays be allowed to marry? My main concern with this whole gay marriage issue is not so much the morality of same sex marriages, but rather, it's this. If we sanction some other forms of marriage that aren't the traditional one man and one woman relationship, doesn't that also lead to the justification of some other forms of marriages (such as polygamy), because those same arguments that applies to gay marriages, such as personal freedoms, could also apply to some other forms of marriages? This is some slippery slope arguments.

 

What if all men were gay.

Would the human species survive?

Putting aside artificial insemination, think about it.

There would never be any procreation.

Kinda like Kant's categorical imperative.

Engage in an act as if you'd wish all of humanity would do.

 

Our Constitution was not amended for Gay marriage or a tyranny of nine establishing religion as to what is and is not sin or establishing what is and is not a preferred cultural State.

The Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas used judicial activism to establish that the Old Testament, Paul, and the Koran are unholy, that homosexuality is not a sin, and by extension their marriage must be a right.

Gay marriage is as much a human right as prostitution, incest, or beastiality, hell just go read Scalia’s opinion.

Marriage is not just about procreating even if that was first invention of the caveman. It is about pleasure too, but safe pleasure, it is about love too, but safe love, it is simply about more than rug rats.

Our Courts were never intended to legislate. That is why we have a problem here.

 

I cant think of a reason.

 

Two seperate issues. Why people chooe to marry and why the government chooses to license and regulate the relationship. Government isnt concerned with pleasure and love. They are concerned about unwed mothers with absent or unknown fathers.

 

For countless marriages the nobility did not care so much about pleasure and love but about alliances; that is probably why a lesbean scientific study of kids would conclude their children go to war less often than kids raised by the nobility of a man and a woman.

If we the people were only interested in preventing unwed mothers with absent or unknown fathers there would be no prohibition against non-breeders marrying.

When I got married about 30 years ago, we had to have a blood test.

 

You definitely only use the missionary method.