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

But there is no stipulation about being biological parents in order to get married. You keep bringing this up as if it's real. It's not. It's just an argument in a court room. It only exists on paper, if even there. It's a fake stipulation that is never applied or enforced in the real world, ever, except to bar same-sex marriage.

Do you normally accept such flimsy lines of reasoning or are you making a special exception because same-sex marriage scares you?

 

That has been the experience in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden, as well as Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, but jurisdictions where Shari'a Law applies remain vehemently opposed for no rational reason. Even as equality is achieved in societies with a predominantly Christian heritage, others remain adamantly resistant to such progress.

 

No, it means you have kicked the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of another strawman of your own creation.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it means you have kicked the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of another strawman of your own creation.

 

When lawmakers do not make the right laws the principle of “consent of the governed” takes over and we can replace them, it is an easy process, but due to their terms having different lengths they do not all come up for vote at the same time, and it is a hard process when we have to do it for a single issue almost ignoring all others. When judges appointed for life make law, for us to have “consent of the governed,” we may have to vote in new lawmakers and the president, and then the House has to impeach and Senate convict and then advise and consent the potentially new president for a new batch of judges; it is a far harder process that puts excessive power in the hands a what essentially is a tyranny of nine. And once again there is the additional burden that we have to do all that for a single issue pretty much ignoring all others thereby increasing the power of the tyranny of nine Platonic Philosopher kings.

We the People can consult the Old Testament, Paul, the Koran, or Doonesbury if we wish when making secular law in this country or unsecular law in the State Republics denying the Digambara the right to go naked in public. To do so is NOT illegal or Unconstitutional, as long as we have Freedom of Speech to denigrate the beliefs of others. Ergo, it does matter what We the People have to say.

 

Hell I do not even remember for sure, I think it had to do with sexually transmitted disease.

 

No one claimed there was.

 

You can consult whatever you wish. But we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a direct democracy, and any laws passed are subject to constitutional scrutiny to determine if they are allowed or not. A law passed "because gawd said so", lacking other compelling state interests, is unconstitutional. As a simple example, even if you could get a 50%+1 majority to pass a law mandating weekly church attendance, because there is no compelling state interest in such a law, it would be deemed unconstitutional, and thus, outside of the power of government to enforce.

 

No, I am fighting against your strawman, and I'd say I've been a pretty good torch to your scarecrow.

 

But you insist that's the whole point of marriage. How can it be the whole point of marriage if there are no stipulations, requirements, laws, even a freaking letter from the government, to that effect? That's asinine, and completely unwarranted, as the only effective use for this stipulation-that's-not-actually-a-stipulation is for people like you to bring it up in the same-sex marriage debate.

To me, that makes this nothing more than law for spite, and it needs to be thrown in the trash.

Just wanted to add, and because God I just love that my county has finally reached the point where I actually can say, this particular law for spite is on the way out. Bye bye. So long. Don't forget to never write. Your arguments and those who make similar ones in this debate are losing. You're not convincing anyone not already set in their opinions on the issue, and that's really because nobody is buying your empty spiteful arguments.

 

Know what's really strange? There's nothing 'special' about gays. Gay just means men who like having sex with other men.
All this hype about whether they feel 'included' or 'fulfilled' is a crock. Who the hell cares?

Just keep beating this dead horse like its the most important thing in the universe. You all sound like big ole whine bags. Geesh, get a real life.

 

Quote me. dont tell me what I insist.

 

Dude, we just did this last night. You asked me to show you where you've said that marriage is solely for procreation and I provided two direct quotes of yours from this thread in a post that I notice you haven't bothered to reply to.

 

????No, you demonstrated you couldnt find any such post of mine.

 

A law passed "because nature said so," lacking other compelling state interests, is constitutional?


I am not supporting Gay marriage because nature said so, nature simply would say they exist due to nature and or nurture, and if they interfere with natural rearing it is survival of the fittest; there is no afterlife, and therefore no afterlife consequences for natural laws measuring Homo naturalness with calipers for orderly disposal or a Final Solution to the Gay phenomena.

Nature does not say they deserve to live any more than it determines a diseased or weak animal deserves to live or rule and spread genes, nor does nature decide any spouse deserves benefits other than those they paid for themselves and have the sword arm to defend.

Without scientific proof that Gays can make Gays from both nurture and nature, which I was attacked for suggesting Gays can make Gays, I am left with the hypothesis that Gays simply choose an unnatural lifestyle.

The cold hard logic of rights does not demand any man work for the added benefit of man’s insurance because they do not know how to use their natural parts. And certainly a natural right does not exist for non-breeders, who do not know how to use their natural parts or are mutants, to raise and nurture children absent of nurturing by both male and female breeders, which nature has decided is required for the existence of the child.

Just the other day I defended Gays, from a religious standpoint, suggesting the treating of them according to Jesus Golden Rule, in an argument with an Atheist family member who is against Homosexual “freaks;” he was adopted and I suppose the Gays will tell us that he would still have his beliefs if he had been adopted by “freaks.”

What you seem to fail to realize is that the Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa taught that the Bible was scientifically accurate and that laws against homosexuality were based upon “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.”

So where does the “Laws of Nature” entitle homosexuals to have children, raise children, get spousal benefits or simply have a right to exist free from survival of the fittest?

 

Are you being sarcastic or just outright lying, because you're most certainly not telling the truth. Go back and read my post again. Are you denying you said the things that I have quoted? (please do, it would be outrageously funny for you to deny something for which there is a written record

 

So full of it.

Nowhere do I state "marriage is only for procreation". CLEARLY I said and you quoted "Marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is ALL and exclusively about the potential of procreation". Not marriage itself. Whats this, the 4th time weve gone over this and yet still you do not comprehend

- - - Updated - - -

Thats amusing coming from a person of your character.

 

Procreation has nothing to do with who can marry

 

The laws of physics apply to all of us. A neighborhood thug, who has no compunction using violence against his fellow man, and inspires fear from all who know him, will still die if he gets run over by a bus.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals ought be executed? You realize that all homosexuals were created by heterosexuals, right? It's not as if we can breed them out of existence.

So they are weak and diseased?

And you should have been attacked for saying that, for it is preposterous. You can not turn a straight person gay, anymore than you can turn a gay person straight. It is an inherent trait.

The only thing I "realize" when it comes to the buybull is that it's mostly full of (*)(*)(*)(*), and is a product of men, who claim they speak for gawd. Such persons in 2013 are generally, rightfully, institutionalized.

 

Semantics, and a poor attempt at even that. But go ahead and explain how this dual purpose of marriage you've created works. If marriage is about more than just procreation specifically, why are you arguing that it's only about procreation? If it's not just about procreation, you have just contradicted the very thing you've been arguing in this forum since I joined last year, which is that marriage must be exclusive because of procreation. It either is or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. If it is, that makes no sense because it's never enforced or mentioned, except when it's trotted out in this specific debate. If it isn't, you have no case.

So, decide. Is marriage about procreation alone or not? Make a decision and stop wiggling.

Is it an odd feeling for you to be speaking with someone who holds you accountable for what you say?

 

Nope, the two statements have completely different meanings. has nothing to do with semantics.

 

Okay. So you've chosen dishonesty and smoke screens.

Go ahead and explain how marriage is simultaneously for and not for procreation. Explain why these restrictions only exist in courtroom arguments, not in any type of actual policy requirements or assessments for people getting married. Show what steps state and federal governments are actively taking to ensure compliance with the procreation stipulation-that-isn't-a-stipulation you have laid out. Show what interest the government has in actively discriminating against people, and please, use evidence and facts(look up the definitions of these words if you need a refresher).

And also, explain how allowing same-sex marriages would negatively affect the existing marriage institution. Again, facts and evidence are helpful.
Hey, I know! Why don't you cite all those horrible statistics coming from states where same-sex marriages have been legalized. Show us the obvious negative effects that it has had in those places.

I will be glued to my seat, waiting in anticipation of the dodging you're likely to do, as is your MO.

 

He is seeking to 'obfuscate' (as usual) and you called him on it.

 

That is exactly what he's doing. I suspect it's a continuous attempt to detract from the kind of MEANINGFUL dialogue which promotes the reasonable and just acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality in-general. He doesn't WANT people talking about all those things that REALLY make sense.

Why? Because most REASONABLE, SANE and DECENT people, tend to realize (after such sensible discussions) THEN accept that homosexual people should treated as equals in this society.

So, his goal is (in my view) to frustrate any discourse which tracks along with good reason overall. His patterns and methods indicate the same.

 

Yes, gays are not special. We are concerned that a part of gender group have not been given equal protection. If you or I can marry whoever we want, why should a part of our gender not be allowed to do the same thing? Even if I wanted to marry another man, there should be no discrimination based on my gender.

The topic of the thread is asking why it is a big deal to the anti-gay marriage crowd. It boils down to morality for them and that should never be used to discriminate. The thread continues because the anti- gay marriage group keep trying to say that is not the case. We try to reply to their posts.

If they would stop posting so would we.

 

I'm not arguing marriage is only about procreation. That's your strawman. Marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is only about the potential of procreation.