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

And you keep responding to questions, without answering the question. Thats why I keep asking.

 

I would point out that Ive never stated otherwise, but there probably wouldnt be any point with you. Your making my argument for me. Marriage isnt limited to a man and a woman in order to exclude homosexuals. It is so limited to include all couples with the potential of procreation. Even a gay man and a lesbian woman can procreate just fine

 

Soooo then whats all this crap about "gay marriage"? Why does every state with gay marriage exclude the single mother and grandmother from marriage. Few of them had to actually enact new legislation along with their gay marriage legislation, specifically to prohibit them from marrying? Why has every court case creating a right to "gay marriage" only done so for gays?

 

Words are indeed flexible. For example, my dictionary uses 'annoy' in each definition of both 'exacerbate' and 'aggravate'. Language evolves; if you returned now to the Middle Ages in England, Middle English would be near incomprehensible to you, unless you were a scholar of early English. Many Middle English words have meanings very different to the same words in use today.

'Gay' is now almost exclusively used synonymously with being homosexual, and words absolutely serve in a political philosophy function-what is propaganda but the use of carefully chosen words, used in order to sway opinion?

 

Nope, the reason is to encourage heterosexuals to marry. The purpose of the law isnt fulfilled by excluding homosexuals, it is fulfilled by including heterosexuals.
Just as the governmental interest in providing tax breaks and governmental entitlements to small businesses isnt served by excluding large businesses, it is served by INCLUDING the owners of small businesses.

 

procreation has nothing to do with who can marry.

- - - Updated - - -

except they don't want special right. 2 heterosexuals of the same gender would be allowed to marry. both having the same rights.

 

Ive cited Ancient Mesopotamian and BC Roman law that says otherwise. Dozens of court cases that cite otherwise. State laws from the 1800s through to the present that state otherwise. Do you have anything other than your often repeated, unsupported claim to show this isnt so?

 

Uh, We the People make the Constitution.

 

oh look, it's your favorite strawman

 

your presumption of paternity argument has been refuted well over 100 times. it's totally irrelevant to who can marry.

 

Actually, we don't. The Constitution can only be changed by Amendment, or Constitutional Convention. Amendments are proposed in the Congress, and if they get sufficient votes, sent to the State Legislatures for ratification. We the people are involved only insofar as we can influence the politicians to do what we want.

Regardless, my point still stands. Religious "laws" cannot be made into actual laws, unless there is a compelling State Interest. Thus, "You shall not murder" CAN be a law, "You shall keep the sabbath holy" cannot. For the former, there exists an obvious and compelling state interest. For the latter, there is not.

 

procreation has nothing to do with who can marry.

- - - Updated - - -

no closely related people can marry in any state. allowing same sex marriage doesn't change that. they were already prohibitted from marrying.

 

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

and it's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hilarious every time you do. ancient mesopotamia and ancient rome have (*)(*)(*)(*) all to do with US law.

actually no court case nor state law says you have to have the ability, intention or potential to procreate in order to marry. You don't even have to have sex in order to marry.


so, like I said. Procreation has nothing to do with who can marry.

 

Tell that to Abu Sina in Egypt, and while you are at it read their new Constitution. We had a nice little debate on it.

My father ran a still during prohibition. Decades later we used to have to cross county lines to buy liquor when I lived in a dry county. Our church that believed wine was used by Jesus at communion and not "new wine" or grape juice had to use grape juice on Sunday.

“ATLANTA -- Georgia could soon join the 47 other states in allowing the sale of packaged alcohol on Sunday afternoons if the House matches the Senate’s Wednesday vote.” (Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:26 PM)
http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2011-03-16/ga-senate-passes-sunday-alcohol-sales

 

Did you vote for or against it?

 

We the People vote for or against it every single time we vote and if the votes do not count we quote Aristotle, Machiavelli, the Magna Carta, Thomas Paine, and a thousand others people and things and if that does not work, and if we are unarmed We the People can just go to Dunkin' Donuts with an ice pick trolling for one party donuts.

 

Sorry, thread is over the post limit

Shangrila
Site Moderator