For or Against Gay Marriage

If there are only "slight benefits" to marriage, then you must believe that all of this hassle over gay marriage is "much ado about nothing" then, correct?

Of course, I don't see it that way. There's Social Security, SS Survivor benefits, tax-free life insurance payments, legal standing, tax-free inheritance, parental rights, and about 1000 other rights, literally.
 
...and the Supreme Court has been wrong before. I right is not something that you have to apply for a license to do. You do not have a right to get married. You can obtain the privilege by getting a license. It can be denied in most states for several reasons.


If it walks like a marriage, talks like a marriage and looks like a marriage, there will be a man and a woman in it.


Marriage has been between a man and a woman since biblical times.


Actually, yes. Natural rights cannot be removed (or granted). They exist (period). Privileges come by way of qualification. Marriage is a privilege, not a right.


Likewise, I repeat: the Supreme Court has made errors in addition to this one. The Supreme Court is nothing more than 9 people who have made it to the top of the judicial food chain. Depending on their collective political leanings, any decision they make is subject to error, in either direction. Even Supreme Court decisions have been reversed.


That definition hasn't changed. It's the definition of "marriage" that you propose changing. At present it is defined as the recognized union between a husband a wife. (male with female).


I don't believe a said I have a problem with gay couples adopting children.


Certainly not. I'm in favor of adoption by qualified parents. I'm even for adoption by single parents. (Sometimes they can do a better job than two bickering parents.)


See above. The Supreme Court is made up of humans, humans that can err just as easily as you or I.


I'm not into creationism either, but there are Genesis accounts of marriages, all between men and women.


Oh but it is. Most everybody's objection to gay marriage comes from their religious beliefs.

Fundamental human rights do not include marriage.
 
Only three sit on the bench who are Liberal appointees, Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens. The rest were placed on the bench by GOPers. :xchicken: :xchicken: :xchicken: :xchicken: :xchicken:
 
Me too, isn't it ironic that liberals have so much compassion for murderers and rapists but none for innocent, defenseless babies in the womb...........How hypocritical is that?
 
Show me one Catholic Church document that stated that marriage was man/man or woman/woman. Otherwise, STFU. :rolleyes:

You specifically attacked Catholicism, so back up your statement with facts or STFU.

I don't protect anyone. I just don't like people who lose arguments and start with personal attacks.
 
Well the special interest will not be going away until we are equally protected under the law. Then I suppose the hype will die and everyone will live happy ever after. BUT you are posting a bunch of data saying homosexuals are unhealthy (untrue) that their relationships don't last (laso untrue) that we shouldn't raise kiRAB (untrue again).

I think you should spend at best one hour readin through some of the older gay rights threaRAB and seeing that either Jake or Ladywolf or Justine have posted all the data in the world to refute these christian biased studies.

Remember statistics don't lie, but statisticians do!
 
CUNx, I sense that you are trying to shame me in some way,...

As I have never been faced with a referendum such as the one you described, I honestly don't know what I would do; nor how I would vote on it. I would like to think that it would depend on how the referendum was written.

I also think you would agree that the basis for MY arguments has been the Constitution (article 8 section1) and the "general welfare" aspects; in conjunction with my want for smaller government.

Will you grant me that much?

So, why do you think that I would not entertain a "general welfare" argument for the recognition of "same sex" marriage?

Why do you think I wouldn't?

In fact, I have said earlier in another thread that I believe that THAT is where those who want "gay marriage" should focus their efforts.

So, you really don't know me as well as you think you do CUNx.

QUOTE; "The government has the right to define marriage as it sees fit to "promote the general welfare" requirments in Article 8, section 1. If you seriously think that Gay marriage should be recognized along side hetero marriages,... My recomendation is that you form your arguments around the ways in which "Gay marriage" is a necessary component of the "general welfare" neeRAB of the nation.

But you should at least TRY to understand that the government has the right to "draw the line somewhere" as to what is and what is not recognized for the general welfare concerns of the nation.

Just my 2 cents."
 
Yes, and we've discussed this, and your arguments have been shown to be logical fallacies or diversions from the issue.

You also avoided answering some important questions I put to you.

Some of your arguments would seem to suggest your problem is with people being gay, instead of straight, not merely with gay marriage.
 
The SCOTUS has several options it it ever gets that far.
1. They can refuse to hear it without comment.
2. They can conclude that the FFCA doesn't apply to "licenses" issued by a state, ie driver's license requirements vary from state to state now and aren't always portable.
3. They can rule it Unconstitutional.
4. They can rule it Constitutional.

Three of the four favor the DOMA.


Agreed. That's why the real battle for judicial appointments is taking place today. If two SCOTUS Justices, who have actually read and understand the Constitution, are appointed under GW2, lots of liberal, judicial activism will be undone: Griswold, Roe, Casey, the dominos will all fall. :)
 
Um, if gays/lesbians were to marry the opposite gender, those individuals would then benifit from said options.
Really, this is only an attempt to further tax and wellfare fraud. Since gays/lesbians who would enter into an opposite gender marriage would only be doing so just to reap said benifits.

Talk about weakening the ideal of marriage!
 
So in Michigan people care that my spouse-to-be is the same sex as I am because it's illegal to give a marriage license to same sex couples in Michigan?

I mean, I thought that it was same-sex marriage being illegal because they cared, not that they cared because it's illegal. It seems odd to me to preserve a law because you're worried that people might break it.

Supposing that same-sex marriage was allowed under the law, would people still care? Why would they care about same-sex marriage if it was legal?
 
Back
Top