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

No you wouldn't. Gay men can already get married. They want special rights... not equal rights.

There's a difference.

 

We can't. We are all restricted to choosing someone of the opposite sex.

 

We don't make the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage available to heterosexual couples to signify acceptance of heterosexuals.

 

Wow. More of your obfuscatory BS.

Gay couples should be allowed to marry and people making a big deal of that are (in my view) simply homophobic and bigoted. What you're talking about above, has virtually nothing to do with it.

 

So you're saying that the potential for procreation is not the same as procreation? What exactly then, is that potential for? Something else?

And that potential is not even required to be there. This provision exists, yet serves no purpose because it's not enforced. This is no different than one of those laws you might read in those Silly Laws You Didn't Know About books. It's like saying there's a law that says you can't ride a horse on Sundays, but, it's never enforced, or even mentioned.

These are pointless laws if their sole reason for still existing is to prevent same-sex marriages. Is it really that surprising that they are beginning to be struck down?

- - - Updated - - -

Special rights would entail the right to do something that other people cannot. What special rights are you talking about?

 

Finally an admission that you do not support gay marriage. Nature does have gay actions among the various species. So the act is not "unnatural".

Are animals who perform gay acts eliminated by nature or do they die like every other animal? Humans have expanded the survival of the fittest by protecting various categories of humans.

How can gays "chose" an unnatural lifestyle if nature has gay actions. Your use of "unnatural" is just your opinion and I find it wrong when I look at nature.

This is your most honest post on where you stand. Nature alone cannot make a law constitutional. No matter what you define as "natural" has nothing to do with gender rights.

Benefits go to married couples so any who marry should get the same rights. The argument about non-breeders has nothing to do with marriage benefits. We have already shown that non-breeders get the same rights as breeders plus many gay couples can breed or adopt children.

We should never base our laws on "the Laws of Nature and of [Nature's] God". That would be a theocracy. Our laws should be based on our Constitution.

 

I am not interstitially married either, but I support the rights of interracial couples to marry

 

Please explain what special rights they want? I have only heard that they want the same rights as other married couples.

 

It doesn't make what the reason for those tax breaks. All married couples should get them because they are on the books. If you feel a need to change those laws, go ahead and try.

 

No more bigoted and incestphobic than your exclusion of the single mother and grandmother.

 

So then whats all this crap about "gay marriage" instead of any and all marriages between any two consenting adults.

 

Everything exactly equal for all people? Exactly equal? So a guy marrying a woman is exactly equal to a guy marrying another guy? That is a very literal interpretation of equality. Then one must take that literal interpretation and apply it to all people. So then 16 year olds should be exactly equal in rights to 21 year olds. How can you deny exactly equal to a 16 year old? Men should be allowed to use any bathroom whether marked man or woman. If you want literal then there you go. How can you not allow it? Its not equal. It separate but equal, not exactly equal. You cannot have Men's basketball. To have that in the name is not equal. Woman's basketball cannot exclude men from participating. It is not exactly equal. There cannot be women only workout gyms. Its not literally equal. People should be allowed to marry as many people together in a joint marriage because to not allow it is an infringement on literal equality.

 

That was an excellent short essay.

 

The special right of marriage, extended to heterosexual couples, the only couples with the potential of procreation. Extend marriage to any two consenting adults and it would cease to be a special right. Extend it only to gays, and it remains a special right available to only hetero and homosexual couples. Because....????? why? only they have the potential of having sex? These court cases that declared procreation to be irrelevant to marriage claim that fostering the formation of stable homes is the new purpose of marriage for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. What does having sex have to do with the need for stable homes? Absurd to think that improving the well being of children born to heterosexual couples by helping to form stable homes where the mother and father together, the only two people obligated by the birth of their child, can provide and care for their child, CANNOT justify the discrimination of marriage. But that helping sexual couples to form stable homes where they can have sex together CAN justify the same discrimmination of marriage. Crazy

 

Nonsense. And please don't make-up words... it's stupid.

 

Wouldnt equality require treating a guy marrying a woman as exactly equal to a guy who is not marrying a woman or anyone else?

 

Address the point made. "Nonsense" addresses nothing. Thats why whenever you see me use the description, I follow with an explanation as to why its nonsense.
Why is excluding two homosexuals from marriage bigotry but your exclusion of the mother and grandmother is not? I exclude them both because of the impossibility of procreation. Has nothing to do with bigotry. Do you view this statute as a reflection of the same bigotry?

§ 8-204. Presumption of paternity in context of marriage.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;

The law limits this statute to men and women for the same reason I limit marriage to men and women. Its not bigotry. Its your inability to formulate a rational response so you have nothing other than accusations of bigotry and homophobia.

 

The special rights of marriage that the single mother and grandmother living together for a decade cannot receive.

 

dixon, you want people to chase trails of words here in this forum.

Most of the conclusions you have reached (however you go there) are things that clear-minded and decent people reject.

If you cannot accept that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

No literal equality equals that. If you say a guy has equal right to marry a man or a woman then a man has equal right to go in either public bathroom. You are drawing no distinction between men and women what so ever.

 

I would hope you would string together a few words to state why one is bigotry and the other is not. You just know any silly explanation you could come up with would be challenged, requiring you to defend your position, which you dont do. So instead we get this endless supply of generic denials void of even a shred of substance, decorated with accusations of bigotry and homophobia.

 

Nope. "Marriages limitation to heterosexual couples" is not the same as "marriage"

 

You really don't read other posts and just repeat the same thing.

 

And one which I would be in favor of granting them as well. I have nothing against mothers and grandmothers.

 

That makes no sense yet again, but beyond that, the statement you just made isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about procreation. Nowhere is there any requirement that a person be heterosexual to have a traditional marriage. The restrictions are on the gender, not the sexuality.

That is why it is funny when same-sex marriage opponents say gay people are asking for special rights. Since there are no sexuality requirements for traditional marriages, which would be the same in a same-sex marriage because the state is not going to verify your sexuality, there are no actual special rights being given to homosexuals. It may be true that heterosexual people will tend to get traditional marriages while homosexual people would get same-sex marriages, there is no requirement that you be a specific sexuality for either. So what that basically means is, if anyone is asking for special rights, it is the heterosexual population, but they aren't asking for special rights, they are asking to keep the ones they already have.