Gay Marriage debate.

[BanginJimmy]

O'Reilly ended the argument last night. The control freaks that make up with evangelical right have absolutely nothing to argue with when you take the bible out of the equation. Hopefully the SCOTUS has the balls to follow the Constitution and declare DOMA, prop 8, and all of the other anti gay marriage laws unconstitutional and be done with it.

O'Reilly: Gay Rights Advocates Have 'Compelling Argument' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHWEwCVbAjI)

[.blank cd]

Listen to the oral arguments of the SC from Hollingsworth v. Perry. They are thoroughly slaughtering the proponents of prop 8. LOL

[E36slide]

Marriage is nothing more then a life long contract. Who cares whos fucking who? I'm sure there are far more better things these jack asses could be arguing about. The bible and marriage is both equally stupid but that's another subject.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

[.blank cd]

But if this is a thread trying to justify BO or the Oreiley factory as a legitimate source of info, I'm still gonna go with no. O'Reiley himself is a pretty rational man, he ended a show the other day with Christians writing in and grilling him on his interpretation of the bible, and he closed with how the bible is largely allegorical and how it shouldn't be taken literally. I will give him a couple extra respect points though for being rational and quelling the narrative on that show just a little. The Stewart/O'Reiley debate is the same way. When the Faux cameras aren't on him, he is an entirely different person.

O'Reiley as an informed man off camera I can tolerate. He's still gotta bring it down a notch, but I'll chock that up to having to go where the paycheck is.

[BanginJimmy]

Listen to the oral arguments of the SC from Hollingsworth v. Perry. They are thoroughly slaughtering the proponents of prop 8. LOL

I've heard several sound bites from both the DOMA case and the Prop 8 case. There simply is no non religious argument against it. The only biological arguments against gay marriage have been solved by means of adoption, surrogates, and artificial insemination.

Oh and I listened to Andrea Tanteros interview the guy Meghan Kelly and O'Reilly were talking about and his arguments were even worse than your average Sinfix argument. The guy was actually claiming that hiring gays violates business owners' rights to religious freedom.

[Sinfix_15]

I've heard several sound bites from both the DOMA case and the Prop 8 case. There simply is no non religious argument against it. The only biological arguments against gay marriage have been solved by means of adoption, surrogates, and artificial insemination.

Oh and I listened to Andrea Tanteros interview the guy Meghan Kelly and O'Reilly were talking about and his arguments were even worse than your average common sense argument. The guy was actually claiming that hiring gays violates business owners' rights to religious freedom.

fixed.

[Elbow]

I will never understand why anyone is against gay marriage, even if you're religious, why is it your business? It's not your job to prevent someone from "sinning."

If I wanted to go marry Sinfix I should legally be allowed to, it will not hurt anyone.

[Sinfix_15]

Just a few questions

Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?

Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?

If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?

Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?

[BanginJimmy]

Just a few questions

Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?

Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?

If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?

Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?

Going to get knee deep in this when I get home.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[Elbow]

Just a few questions

Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?

Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?

If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?

Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?

Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?
A horse is not a person. It's an animal, so no. I don't see the relation. A relative, no, why? Because there are far more medical risks with incest than what you can get from "gay sex."

Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?
Absolutely. There were many couples in my high school of the same sex and not once did it bother me. It's not like gays openly show their affection for one another more than a heterosexual couple.

If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?
Yes, that's their own decision and they should have the right to refuse marrying a same sex couple. At that point, it can be a religious debate, the couple should be able to be married at a courthouse however without any judging or refusal.

Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?
If there's laws about hiring different races and what not, then homosexuals should be in the mix as well. That's discrimination. If there isn't a law, then I guess it can be up to the business owner.

[Sinfix_15]

I dont care what gay people do and am fine with them having equal rights as everyone else. The religious sanctity of marriage is a laughable. The biblical interpretation of marriage is so far lost that it's pointless to even bother holding on to it. If christians care so much about the religious institution of marriage, then quit allowing divorce and quit remarrying people who have been divorced. Marriage is a contract between two people. Historically, that contract has been for the exclusive right to have sex with that person. My guess would be that it started for the purpose of being able to identify your own children, prior to have a scientific method for that. However you chose to interpret marriage, its a contract between two people. A contract between two people is the business of the two people making that contract. The government should have no say in this issue outside of recognizing it.

If i ever have kids, i will tell them that being gay is wrong.

[Elbow]

I dont care what gay people do and am fine with them having equal rights as everyone else. The religious sanctity of marriage is a laughable. The biblical interpretation of marriage is so far lost that it's pointless to even bother holding on to it. If christians care so much about the religious institution of marriage, then quit allowing divorce and quit remarrying people who have been divorced. Marriage is a contract between two people. Historically, that contract has been for the exclusive right to have sex with that person. My guess would be that it started for the purpose of being able to identify your own children, prior to have a scientific method for that. However you chose to interpret marriage, its a contract between two people. A contract between two people is the business of the two people making that contract. The government should have no say in this issue outside of recognizing it.

If i ever have kids, i will tell them that being gay is wrong.

So if you aren't religious...how is being gay "wrong?"

[Sinfix_15]

Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?
A horse is not a person. It's an animal, so no. I don't see the relation. A relative, no, why? Because there are far more medical risks with incest than what you can get from "gay sex."

Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?
Absolutely. There were many couples in my high school of the same sex and not once did it bother me. It's not like gays openly show their affection for one another more than a heterosexual couple.

If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?
Yes, that's their own decision and they should have the right to refuse marrying a same sex couple. At that point, it can be a religious debate, the couple should be able to be married at a courthouse however without any judging or refusal.

Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?
If there's laws about hiring different races and what not, then homosexuals should be in the mix as well. That's discrimination. If there isn't a law, then I guess it can be up to the business owner.

I dont disagree with any of that, just curious to people's response.

You say incest marriage should not be allowed because of medical risks. Condoms? abortion? birth control?

Should retarded people be allowed to get married? should anyone else with medical limitation be refused marriage?

[Elbow]

I dont disagree with any of that, just curious to people's response.

You say incest marriage should not be allowed because of medical risks. Condoms? abortion? birth control?

Should retarded people be allowed to get married? should anyone else with medical limitation be refused marriage?

Condoms, abortion, and birth control don't work for people who don't want babies now, why would they work for people that married a family member?

Are retarded people currently not allowed to get married? I think the point you're making is they could produce more mentally challenged people?

[Sinfix_15]

So if you aren't religious...how is being gay "wrong?"

Religion is not the only moral compass.

[Elbow]

Religion is not the only moral compass.

Well then enlighten me, because I don't understand how anyone would oppose it unless religion was the reason, then I disagree, but it's the only thing that has any base to it, stupid and worthless base, but a reason.

[Sinfix_15]

Condoms, abortion, and birth control don't work for people who don't want babies now, why would they work for people that married a family member?

Are retarded people currently not allowed to get married? I think the point you're making is they could produce more mentally challenged people?

So if i get a vesectomy, should i be allowed to marry my sister?

I have no point, just trying to define the perimeters of marriage, if there are any. Is reproduction the primary reason for marriage? if not, why does incest matter? if reproduction is the primary reason, how does that apply to homosexuals?

[Sinfix_15]

Well then enlighten me, because I don't understand how anyone would oppose it unless religion was the reason, then I disagree, but it's the only thing that has any base to it, stupid and worthless base, but a reason.

Not being able to answer "why not" is not always a reason to do something. I dont believe people should teach their kids that theyre going to burn in hell if they sin, but they have the freedom to teach it.

If my son came to me and told me he was gay, i would hug him, tell him it was ok.... wait for him to leave the house...... probably cry and think about shooting myself..... then get over it, move on and never let it bother me again. Not something i would obsess over, but not something i would encourage.

Ideally, my son or daughter will find a matching color of the opposite sex to fall in love with. If they dont, that's their business and i'll support them and be happy for them.

[.blank cd]

Just a few questions

Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?A horse, a dog, your toaster, your beer is not a consenting adult, and thus can not enter into a legally binding contract.

1st cousin marriages are permitted in many states.


Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?Yes


If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?sure, as long as they abide by existing non-discrimination laws


Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?This violates existing non-discrimination laws.

[Elbow]

So if i get a vesectomy, should i be allowed to marry my sister?

I have no point, just trying to define the perimeters of marriage, if there are any. Is reproduction the primary reason for marriage? if not, why does incest matter? if reproduction is the primary reason, how does that apply to homosexuals?

I mean if there was a way to completely prevent reproducing, then incest may not be as bad in my opinion. It depends though, cousins marrying each other is different than brother and sister.

Marriage in my eyes is pure love and devotion between two people, a huge side effect (benefit) is raising a family. Can all of that be done without marriage? Sure. However, there's also other benefits from getting married and I personally would like the idea of calling someone my wife and sharing a truly connected life.

With that said, a sister and brother or cousins could be in love, which I guess is OK, but if it means a baby is brought into the world with a rare disease, then there starts to be issues.


Not being able to answer "why not" is not always a reason to do something. I dont believe people should teach their kids that theyre going to burn in hell if they sin, but they have the freedom to teach it.

I don't get it, they have the freedom yes, but there's a reason behind anything.

[Elbow]

My reason for not being opposed to same sex marriages or relationships is because I do believe many are born that way. I have some gay friends that I never doubted to be gay before they came out. A girl that gets drunk at a party and makes out with girls or goes rebel like and calls herself a lesbian is not the same. If my kid is gay, he or she can be gay, I'd never push them to be "normal" because the only "normal" is being who you are. Trying to govern someones own personal choices and feelings is like trying to control an act of God, you won't win.

That's not to say I would encourage being gay or anything like that, I would let them figure it out on their own.

[Echonova]

My reason for not being opposed to same sex marriages or relationships is because I do believe many are born that way. I have some gay friends that I never doubted to be gay before they came out. A girl that gets drunk at a party and makes out with girls or goes rebel like and calls herself a lesbian is not the same. If my kid is gay, he or she can be gay, I'd never push them to be "normal" because the only "normal" is being who you are. Trying to govern someones own personal choices and feelings is like trying to control an act of God, you won't win.

That's not to say I would encourage being gay or anything like that, I would let them figure it out on their own.Holy shit... I agree with every word you just posted.


The end is nigh.

[BanginJimmy]

Just a few questions

Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?

This same stupid argument. If you really think its worth an answer, I will give you one thats on a equal intellectual plane as the question. Laws will still be there.



Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?

Gay isnt contagious so I cant foresee any problems with a gay couple no matter where they happen to be.



If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?

As already mentioned, this is where religion belongs. A church has every right to refuse to marry a gay couple as it does go against their doctrine. That is an example of religious freedom.



Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not?

Of course not, its called discrimination. The bookstore isnt a religious organization, it is an independent business. If the bookstore is an actual part of the church, you have a very different argument.



Now that I have answered your questions, you can answer mine.

Why should gays not be given the same privilege of marriage, and all the benefits that come with it, that straight couples get?

[BanginJimmy]

fixed.

I have yet to see a common sense argument against gay marriage. You will have to point one out to me.

[David88vert]

Marriage licenses are issued per the state regulations through the county probate court. Each state has the responsibility of establishing who can get enter into a binding contract in their state. This should not be a federal issue, unless we are going to remove marriage licenses from being issued from the county courthouses, and move them to the federal courthouses.

In GA in 2004, voters specifically passed a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage. This amendment should be revoked at the state level if any legislation is to be passed for GA to recognize gay marriage. Federal law does not regulate the issuance of marriage licenses.

Marriage ceremonies that are held by religious institutions are symbolic, and are not legal binding contracts without a state issued marriage license. While officiates can be clergy or ordained ministers, it can just as easily be a Justice of the Peace, and hence, no religious connotation is needed over a marriage.

[David88vert]

Gay isnt contagious .....

It is in Hollywood.....


Of course not, its called discrimination. The bookstore isnt a religious organization, it is an independent business. If the bookstore is an actual part of the church, you have a very different argument.

It's a difficult one to prove, and only a case or two each year settles for the person being discriminated against.


Why should gays not be given the same privilege of marriage, and all the benefits that come with it, that straight couples get?

Currently, it is illegal in GA, so you will have to change the Georgia Constitution first, which is unlikely, considering the DOMA was just passed in 2004.

[Elbow]

What's the reasoning behind it being illegal?

[BanginJimmy]

Marriage licenses are issued per the state regulations through the county probate court. Each state has the responsibility of establishing who can get enter into a binding contract in their state. This should not be a federal issue, unless we are going to remove marriage licenses from being issued from the county courthouses, and move them to the federal courthouses.

This has to be a federal issue because of mobility. If a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts and they decide to move to GA, are they no longer married? When the Constitution was written, mobility wasnt much of an issue as most people lived their entire lives in a pretty small area. That isnt the case today so the US needs 1 set of laws to cover this.



In GA in 2004, voters specifically passed a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage. This amendment should be revoked at the state level if any legislation is to be passed for GA to recognize gay marriage. Federal law does not regulate the issuance of marriage licenses.

You are correct and I agree. How binding is that though? I understand that the way the ruling is written has a lot to do with this, but if the SCOTUS rules that DOMA and Prop 8 are unconstitutional do all of the other states' anti gay marriage laws fall also or do they need to be challenged independently? Could GA be forced to recognize gay marriages even though they do not issue marriage licenses?

[BanginJimmy]

What's the reasoning behind it being illegal?

The bible says so.


I got into a little tussle with a bible thumping friend of mine over this today. He just couldnt get his head around the fact that social conservatives want a stronger, more authoritarian police state like govt than even the most liberal liberals. They really do want full control over who you love, how you love, and what you do with your body.

[David88vert]

This has to be a federal issue because of mobility. If a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts and they decide to move to GA, are they no longer married? When the Constitution was written, mobility wasnt much of an issue as most people lived their entire lives in a pretty small area. That isnt the case today so the US needs 1 set of laws to cover this.

Not at all.
Marriage licenses in the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the state in which the ceremony is performed; however, the marriage is generally recognized across the country through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." In some instances, as is the case with same-sex marriages, other states may not recognize a marriage license from another state. The state in which they are married holds the record of that marriage. This has been going on a long time and you are suggesting that the federal government remove the rights of the states and place them in the hands of the federal government. That's typically a bad idea for most issues, and directly tells the majority of the people in this state that their beliefs are worthless.





You are correct and I agree. How binding is that though? I understand that the way the ruling is written has a lot to do with this, but if the SCOTUS rules that DOMA and Prop 8 are unconstitutional do all of the other states' anti gay marriage laws fall also or do they need to be challenged independently? Could GA be forced to recognize gay marriages even though they do not issue marriage licenses?

Do you think that the Federal Government should have the power to nullify a state constitution? If so, why even have a state government. Just place every aspect of government under the federal government.

[David88vert]

The bible says so.


The Georgia State Constitution says so. Leave the Bible out of it.
"CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA Defense of Marriage Act: Amend th" by Shannon Alexander and Heather Schafer (http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol21/iss1/11/)

[BanginJimmy]

Not at all.
Marriage licenses in the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the state in which the ceremony is performed; however, the marriage is generally recognized across the country through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." In some instances, as is the case with same-sex marriages, other states may not recognize a marriage license from another state. The state in which they are married holds the record of that marriage. This has been going on a long time and you are suggesting that the federal government remove the rights of the states and place them in the hands of the federal government. That's typically a bad idea for most issues, and directly tells the majority of the people in this state that their beliefs are worthless.

I was referring to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. IF GA isnt going to honor a marriage contract from Ma, what is stopping Ma from not honoring a child support ruling from GA? Full Faith and Credit needs to be honored universally or it needs to be amended out of the Constitution. The states cannot decide on their own which clauses of the Constitution they want to follow. It is an all or nothing proposition.




Do you think that the Federal Government should have the power to nullify a state constitution? If so, why even have a state government. Just place every aspect of government under the federal government.

The federal govt would not be nullifying a state constitution or even a part of it. The SCOTUS would be nullifying the amendment outlawing gay marriage as unconstitutional, which is what they are supposed to be doing. This is why I asked if it was possible that GA is forced recognize same sex marriages performed in other states, even if they cannot be forced to issue marriage licenses or have them performed here.

[BanginJimmy]

The Georgia State Constitution says so. Leave the Bible out of it.
"CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA Defense of Marriage Act: Amend th" by Shannon Alexander and Heather Schafer (http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol21/iss1/11/)

he asked the reasoning behind it being illegal, not the mechanism that made it so.

[.blank cd]

It's a difficult one to prove, and only a case or two each year settles for the person being discriminated against.
Hobbytown, I think it was, tried this, with Obamacares birth control provision, courts decided the business itself was secular and wasnt bound to the same freedom of religion provisions. They had to offer birth control despite being owned by Christians.

[Elbow]

So much win on The Daily Show tonight about this. lol

[.blank cd]

The federal govt would not be nullifying a state constitution or even a part of it. The SCOTUS would be nullifying the amendment outlawing gay marriage as unconstitutional, which is what they are supposed to be doing. This is why I asked if it was possible that GA is forced recognize same sex marriages performed in other states, even if they cannot be forced to issue marriage licenses or have them performed here.
It'd probably have to come to court here

[BanginJimmy]

It'd probably have to come to court here

Pretty much what I was thinking also but it really depends on how the SCOTUS writes their majority and minority opinions.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[.blank cd]

So much win on The Daily Show tonight about this. lol
This

[Sinfix_15]

Now that I have answered your questions, you can answer mine.

Why should gays not be given the same privilege of marriage, and all the benefits that come with it, that straight couples get?

I've never once said they shouldnt..... i've stated i support gay rights many times. I think gays should be allowed to be legally married, but i also value the christian interpretation of marriage which also happens to be the traditional american view on marriage. I personally dont think the government should have anything to do with marriages period, but since they do..... it's not their business to uphold the laws of religion. Gays should be allowed to marry and receive the same benefit as anyone else. I would encourage religious institutions to continue forbidding it and priests to refuse to marry gay couples. I support gay rights at the same time as supporting religious rights, it's hard to make one side happy without offending the other side. If forced to pick a side, id probably cast a vote in favor of religion.


gay isnt contagious..... debatable.

[Sinfix_15]

The bible says so.


I got into a little tussle with a bible thumping friend of mine over this today. He just couldnt get his head around the fact that social conservatives want a stronger, more authoritarian police state like govt than even the most liberal liberals. They really do want full control over who you love, how you love, and what you do with your body.

Democrats want your wallet, republicans want your bedroom.... it's easier to lock your bedroom door than it is to keep them out of your wallet, and like anyone else who tries to steal your wallet, they would also prefer you didnt have a gun.

[Sinfix_15]

A horse, a dog, your toaster, your beer is not a consenting adult, and thus can not enter into a legally binding contract.

1st cousin marriages are permitted in many states.

Yes

sure, as long as they abide by existing non-discrimination laws

This violates existing non-discrimination laws.

Fair enough on the contractual part of it.

What about sister, mother, brother ect..... theyre consenting adults... if it makes someone happy why not? And if you object to it, what are the guidelines for not allowing it?

[Elbow]

Fair enough on the contractual part of it.

What about sister, mother, brother ect..... theyre consenting adults... if it makes someone happy why not? And if you object to it, what are the guidelines for not allowing it?

Why do you keep asking these questions but won't answer mine.

What about homosexuals, they're consenting adults... if it makes someone happy why not? And if you object to it, what are the guidelines for not allowing it?

[E36slide]

People still follow these guidlines to keep the peace so to speak. If laws keep getting passed going against the bible people will start to not trust faith. If the bible was disproved then there would be chaos because people wouldn't care about the possible consequences of their actions. people try to live their life according to religion that's why their so eager to not pass equl rights for gays. In the eye of a religious man gays are not an equal. The issue I have is, people who are gay do not choose it (some idiots excitement) their born with the abnormality. So how can they help that their more attracted towards the same sex as apposed to the opposite sex? Should they be strung up for death? They do not affect anyones well being. You don't have to watch the have intercourse. Just my two pennies.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

[Elbow]

People still follow these guidlines to keep the peace so to speak. If laws keep getting passed going against the bible people will start to not trust faith. If the bible was disproved then there would be chaos because people wouldn't care about the possible consequences of their actions. people try to live their life according to religion that's why their so eager to not pass equl rights for gays. In the eye of a religious man gays are not an equal. The issue I have is, people who are gay do not choose it (some idiots excitement) their born with the abnormality. So how can they help that their more attracted towards the same sex as apposed to the opposite sex? Should they be strung up for death? They do not affect anyones well being. You don't have to watch the have intercourse. Just my two pennies.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

I agree with most, except that people don't care about consequences to their actions unless they believe in the bible.

Religion has no place in the government or law making, as mentioned, divorce should be illegal and many other things. What about war? Porn? There's loads of things that would go against religion if it boiled down to it that law makers don't mind signing or taking part in. The biggest reason I'm sure is they think it's gross.

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you keep asking these questions but won't answer mine.

What about homosexuals, they're consenting adults... if it makes someone happy why not? And if you object to it, what are the guidelines for not allowing it?

I dont want to prevent gay people from being legally married. I would prefer to do so in a way that also accommodates religious tradition. Our government has no business upholding religious "laws", in the eyes of the law... marriage is a contract between consenting adults, and gay people should be allowed that right.

I do not want to prevent gay people from being legally married but At the same time, i respect the church's right to refuse wedding them. In any situation, i value freedom. I do not agree with being gay, i think being gay is a choice... ect ect ect but i still respect their freedom and rights.

[Sinfix_15]

Religion has no place in the government or law making, as mentioned, divorce should be illegal and many other things. What about war? Porn? There's loads of things that would go against religion if it boiled down to it that law makers don't mind signing or taking part in. The biggest reason I'm sure is they think it's gross.

I agree with you

[Sinfix_15]

People still follow these guidlines to keep the peace so to speak. If laws keep getting passed going against the bible people will start to not trust faith. If the bible was disproved then there would be chaos because people wouldn't care about the possible consequences of their actions. people try to live their life according to religion that's why their so eager to not pass equl rights for gays. In the eye of a religious man gays are not an equal. The issue I have is, people who are gay do not choose it (some idiots excitement) their born with the abnormality. So how can they help that their more attracted towards the same sex as apposed to the opposite sex? Should they be strung up for death? They do not affect anyones well being. You don't have to watch the have intercourse. Just my two pennies.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

I dont know if i would go as far as to say the world would be chaos without religion............ historically.... religion has been the driving force behind most of the chaos we have experienced.

[Elbow]

I dont want to prevent gay people from being legally married. I would prefer to do so in a way that also accommodates religious tradition. Our government has no business upholding religious "laws", in the eyes of the law... marriage is a contract between consenting adults, and gay people should be allowed that right.

I do not want to prevent gay people from being legally married but At the same time, i respect the church's right to refuse wedding them. In any situation, i value freedom. I do not agree with being gay, i think being gay is a choice... ect ect ect but i still respect their freedom and rights.

Gotcha

[Sinfix_15]

Why do married couples get government benefits to begin with? explain the designed purpose of this please.

[E36slide]

I dont know if i would go as far as to say the world would be chaos without religion............ historically.... religion has been the driving force behind most of the chaos we have experienced.

I know so without religion to fall back on they would be killing in the name of greed aka money. We already know this to be true, but there are people who are nieve to think god (if he exists) would want us killing each other over a piece of paper that is stamped with a public figure so to speak. If you take away religion, you're taking away the majority of peoples reason for living and doing good. If those same people where to realize it isn't tru they would have no other (nice) way of saying gay marriage is just plain out gross. I've also noticed more people are apposed to gay men the women. Why is that? I also don't believe being gay is a choice. Some, sure. I'm not talking about that one girl who fucked the neighborhood and got mad at men for taking a free ride on her magical poney and now she wants nothing to do with men. So she becomes a carpet muncher and declares herself gay, thos are the : fake: gays. I'm talking about the flammer, who talks, acts, and dresses like a girl/boy and are 100% gay. They didn't have a choice to whome they would be attracted to. So if they want to marry another gay person why not? We have no shot with a gay girl (long term marriage) so why not allow them to be happy. These matters are not even important and yet america waste time arguing and wasting money for nothing. If they love being gay then thats what they will be no one can force them to like the opposite sex without break their rights as an american.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

[E36slide]

Why do married couples get government benefits to begin with? explain the designed purpose of this please.

This is a good question. My gf now fiancé wants to get married simply for these benefits. Even though I'm opposed against marriage and religion. Marriage is a binding contract under god correct? Not the goverment. So why do we get goverment benefits ? How does me and my fiancé being married going to in return help the government.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

[Sinfix_15]

I know so without religion to fall back on they would be killing in the name of greed aka money. We already know this to be true, but there are people who are nieve to think god (if he exists) would want us killing each other over a piece of paper that is stamped with a public figure so to speak. If you take away religion, you're taking away the majority of peoples reason for living and doing good. If those same people where to realize it isn't tru they would have no other (nice) way of saying gay marriage is just plain out gross. I've also noticed more people are apposed to gay men the women. Why is that? I also don't believe being gay is a choice. Some, sure. I'm not talking about that one girl who fucked the neighborhood and got mad at men for taking a free ride on her magical poney and now she wants nothing to do with men. So she becomes a carpet muncher and declares herself gay, thos are the : fake: gays. I'm talking about the flammer, who talks, acts, and dresses like a girl/boy and are 100% gay. They didn't have a choice to whome they would be attracted to. So if they want to marry another gay person why not? We have no shot with a gay girl (long term marriage) so why not allow them to be happy. These matters are not even important and yet america waste time arguing and wasting money for nothing. If they love being gay then thats what they will be no one can force them to like the opposite sex without break their rights as an american.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

I dont agree. I do not need religion to know right from wrong. A lot of people have morals and values without having any use for religion. Myself and Blank are two examples.

[E36slide]

I dont agree. I do not need religion to know right from wrong. A lot of people have morals and values without having any use for religion. Myself and Blank are two examples.

You're just a few people who dont. The majority of people do though. 100% of some countries live solemnly to praise god. Without god they would be lost. No religion, no pope. No one person ruling over others in the name of god. For some countries no god means no rules at all.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

[Sinfix_15]

You're just a few people who dont. The majority of people do though. 100% of some countries live solemnly to praise god. Without god they would be lost. No religion, no pope. No one person ruling over others in the name of god. For some countries no god means no rules at all.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

If religion is the only thing holding the world together......... then god help us all.

[David88vert]

I was referring to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. IF GA isnt going to honor a marriage contract from Ma, what is stopping Ma from not honoring a child support ruling from GA? Full Faith and Credit needs to be honored universally or it needs to be amended out of the Constitution. The states cannot decide on their own which clauses of the Constitution they want to follow. It is an all or nothing proposition.


FF&C is utilized mainly in law enforcement and judgments, not civil unions.
As for its application in records of marriage, it has precedent. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage certificates issued in other states. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.




The federal govt would not be nullifying a state constitution or even a part of it. The SCOTUS would be nullifying the amendment outlawing gay marriage as unconstitutional, which is what they are supposed to be doing. This is why I asked if it was possible that GA is forced recognize same sex marriages performed in other states, even if they cannot be forced to issue marriage licenses or have them performed here.


Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws (9 states) and constitutional amendments (30 states) that define marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. That's a LOT more than half of the states expressly addressing gay marriage.

Nine states have allowed gay marriage - Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Do you think that Washington, DC, and these 9 states should overrule the state amendments of over 30 states? What kind of "United STATES" is that?

[BanginJimmy]

Why do married couples get government benefits to begin with? explain the designed purpose of this please.

It is mostly benefits written into the tax code. This is a big deal for federal employees also. If DOMA is repealed ghey would receive federal insurance and survivor benefits.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[David88vert]

he asked the reasoning behind it being illegal, not the mechanism that made it so.


Actually, voters had to pass the constitutional amendment. I don't recall anything being on the ballot asking what religious affiliation a person was.

[Sinfix_15]

It is mostly benefits written into the tax code. This is a big deal for federal employees also. If DOMA is repealed ghey would receive federal insurance and survivor benefits.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

But why?

[David88vert]

Hobbytown, I think it was, tried this, with Obamacares birth control provision, courts decided the business itself was secular and wasnt bound to the same freedom of religion provisions. They had to offer birth control despite being owned by Christians.

Different situation. Secular business, owners are just religious.

There are other documented cases where this has happened though - that one in OK (Voss Lighting) was publicized. It is easy for a business to cover up though.

[David88vert]

... that's why their so eager to not pass equl rights for gays. In the eye of a religious man gays are not an equal.



... marriage is a contract between consenting adults, and gay people should be allowed that right.

I do not want to prevent gay people from being legally married but At the same time, i respect the church's right to refuse wedding them. In any situation, i value freedom. I do not agree with being gay, i think being gay is a choice... ect ect ect but i still respect their freedom and rights.


I know so without religion to fall back on they would be killing in the name of greed aka money. We already know this to be true, but there are people who are nieve to think god (if he exists) would want us killing each other over a piece of paper that is stamped with a public figure so to speak. If you take away religion, you're taking away the majority of peoples reason for living and doing good. If those same people where to realize it isn't tru they would have no other (nice) way of saying gay marriage is just plain out gross. I've also noticed more people are apposed to gay men the women. Why is that? I also don't believe being gay is a choice. Some, sure. I'm not talking about that one girl who fucked the neighborhood and got mad at men for taking a free ride on her magical poney and now she wants nothing to do with men. So she becomes a carpet muncher and declares herself gay, thos are the : fake: gays. I'm talking about the flammer, who talks, acts, and dresses like a girl/boy and are 100% gay. They didn't have a choice to whome they would be attracted to. So if they want to marry another gay person why not? We have no shot with a gay girl (long term marriage) so why not allow them to be happy. These matters are not even important and yet america waste time arguing and wasting money for nothing. If they love being gay then thats what they will be no one can force them to like the opposite sex without break their rights as an american.



Marriage is not a right; therefore, gay marriage cannot be a right either. There is no legal statement saying that marriage is a right in the Constitution or the Amendments.

People who are gay do have a choice - the same choice that straight people have. Straight people do not have to sleep with another, neither do gay people. They are not forced to do anything; they choose their behavior - the same a s straight people.

Gay and straight people have the same rights. There is no difference, except that some states have chosen to not allow a specific behavior to receive a marriage license. That specific behavior does not have "rights", as it is not a condition, such as a disability. To treat people as though they were disabled or handicapped just because they choose to be gay, is wrong.

[David88vert]

Why do married couples get government benefits to begin with? explain the designed purpose of this please.

Simple. The government wants people to get married and have more kids, so that they have a larger tax base.

[Sinfix_15]

Marriage is not a right; therefore, gay marriage cannot be a right either. There is no legal statement saying that marriage is a right in the Constitution or the Amendments.

People who are gay do have a choice - the same choice that straight people have. Straight people do not have to sleep with another, neither do gay people. They are not forced to do anything; they choose their behavior - the same a s straight people.

Gay and straight people have the same rights. There is no difference, except that some states have chosen to not allow a specific behavior to receive a marriage license. That specific behavior does not have "rights", as it is not a condition, such as a disability. To treat people as though they were diabled just because they choose to be gay, is horribly insulting to them.

Why does any couple receive benefits?

If the government offers benefits to married couples, why should it matter the type of couple? Is the benefit a reward for procreating? i honestly dont understand it.

[E36slide]

If religion is the only thing holding the world together......... then god help us all.

You were told if you do bad and don't get into hevan your soul would burn in hell for all eternity. I do believe majority of church goers believe this. Look at all the riots and chaos that gets caused over religion. Now imagine those same people finding out there is no god.
A good bit of people will probably fuck some shit up. Lol
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

[Sinfix_15]

Simple. The government wants people to get married and have more kids, so that they have a larger tax base.

That's my opinion, but is that on paper?

[Sinfix_15]

You were told if you do bad and don't get into hevan your soul would burn in hell for all eternity. I do believe majority of church goers believe this. Look at all the riots and chaos that gets caused over religion. Now imagine those same people finding out there is no god.
A good bit of people will probably fuck some shit up. Lol
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

or...... hear me out......

people will have a lot of stress and anxiety removed from their lives and will become more peaceful and loving individuals once they realize that life is about finding fulfillment and enjoying yourself rather than living out a test in which the end result is being rewarded the opportunity to escape an eternity of torture so that you can spend an eternity as a servant instead.

[BanginJimmy]

Actually, voters had to pass the constitutional amendment. I don't recall anything being on the ballot asking what religious affiliation a person was.

Then I guess you will have to come up with another reason. Even my wife, who is dead fast against gay marriage, admits she is only opposed because of religion. I cant come up with a single other reason to be against it.


But why?

Because politicians are always looking to carve out a little tax break for someone they like. I would love to see a flat tax instituted and ZERO deductions for a personal return.



People who are gay do have a choice - the same choice that straight people have. Straight people do not have to sleep with another, neither do gay people. They are not forced to do anything; they choose their behavior - the same a s straight people.

Gay and straight people have the same rights. There is no difference, except that some states have chosen to not allow a specific behavior to receive a marriage license. That specific behavior does not have "rights", as it is not a condition, such as a disability. To treat people as though they were disabled or handicapped just because they choose to be gay, is wrong.

You believe being gay is a choice, I do not. I believe it is some kind of genetic or brain chemistry abnormality.


BTW, I dont believe being gay is 'normal', but I dont think it is a reason to deny gays the basic institutions and benefits that a straight couple has.

[E36slide]

or...... hear me out......

people will have a lot of stress and anxiety removed from their lives and will become more peaceful and loving individuals once they realize that life is about finding fulfillment and enjoying yourself rather than living out a test in which the end result is being rewarded the opportunity to escape an eternity of torture so that you can spend an eternity as a servant instead.

If only everyone thought that lol I'm sure united states would be fine, but tell that to india and all the other, countries praying 80% of their day. Their whole life revolves around god.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

[David88vert]

Ok, so now on to the solution.

Federal:
The Federal government should not be involved in marriage at all. It is not a Federally stated right, and it is managed by the states. The Federal government should not have a DOMA - period. It has no business in this area. The Federal government should recognize all marriages, and extend federal tax benefits to all married couples, whether or not they are traditional or same-sex. It's simple really.

State:
States should be allowed to decide who they will issue a marriage license to. If they want to block same-sex marriage, that's fine. Others will allow it. A couple can simply go to a state that allows them to get married and do so. It happened for years between GA and AL when minors would go to AL to get married. It's not a new thing. If a gay couple goes to Washington DC and gets married, and comes back to GA, they are still married, and will get their federal tax benefits, but they won't get the state tax benefits.

Competition:
States that are gay marriage friendly will attract more gay couples. It's pretty basic. Most of the gay couples that I have met, make good money, and are valued as good taxpayers. States that attract these individual will be better off. States that do not grant benefits to gay married couples will find that they lose these individuals and their tax money over time.

[Sinfix_15]

Because politicians are always looking to carve out a little tax break for someone they like. I would love to see a flat tax instituted and ZERO deductions for a personal return.


I would be happy with a flat SALES tax to replace what we have now. I dont like income tax. If im going through hard times, i can cut back and save, which would lower my taxes. If im wealthy and buying corvettes, im paying more taxes. It balances its self out.

The reason i think it would never happen............. because the government absolutely loathes privacy.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok, so now on to the solution.

Federal:
The Federal government should not be involved in marriage at all. It is not a Federally stated right, and it is managed by the states. The Federal government should not have a DOMA - period. It has no business in this area. The Federal government should recognize all marriages, and extend federal tax benefits to all married couples, whether or not they are traditional or same-sex. It's simple really.

State:
States should be allowed to decide who they will issue a marriage license to. If they want to block same-sex marriage, that's fine. Others will allow it. A couple can simply go to a state that allows them to get married and do so. It happened for years between GA and AL when minors would go to AL to get married. It's not a new thing. If a gay couple goes to Washington DC and gets married, and comes back to GA, they are still married, and will get their federal tax benefits, but they won't get the state tax benefits.

Competition:
States that are gay marriage friendly will attract more gay couples. It's pretty basic. Most of the gay couples that I have met, make good money, and are valued as good taxpayers. States that attract these individual will be better off. States that do not grant benefits to gay married couples will find that they lose these individuals and their tax money over time.

Why do they and why should they extend marriage benefits to anyone? what is the return on this "investment"?

Other than that, i support that idea completely.

[David88vert]

That's my opinion, but is that on paper?

I don't know.

[BanginJimmy]

Ok, so now on to the solution.

Federal:
The Federal government should not be involved in marriage at all. It is not a Federally stated right, and it is managed by the states. The Federal government should not have a DOMA - period. It has no business in this area. The Federal government should recognize all marriages, and extend federal tax benefits to all married couples, whether or not they are traditional or same-sex. It's simple really.

State:
States should be allowed to decide who they will issue a marriage license to. If they want to block same-sex marriage, that's fine. Others will allow it. A couple can simply go to a state that allows them to get married and do so. It happened for years between GA and AL when minors would go to AL to get married. It's not a new thing. If a gay couple goes to Washington DC and gets married, and comes back to GA, they are still married, and will get their federal tax benefits, but they won't get the state tax benefits.

Competition:
States that are gay marriage friendly will attract more gay couples. It's pretty basic. Most of the gay couples that I have met, make good money, and are valued as good taxpayers. States that attract these individual will be better off. States that do not grant benefits to gay married couples will find that they lose these individuals and their tax money over time.


I could live with that.

[David88vert]

Then I guess you will have to come up with another reason. Even my wife, who is dead fast against gay marriage, admits she is only opposed because of religion. I cant come up with a single other reason to be against it.


Why should voters have to have a reason? In order to change a constitutional amendment, it has to be voted on. It was, and GA passed DOMA. It's that simple. "Reason" is not required.
It's currently the law, and if it is to be changed legally, then it will need to pass another vote - and those voters will not be required to have a reason either for repealing the amendment or for passing another.



You believe being gay is a choice, I do not. I believe it is some kind of genetic or brain chemistry abnormality.
BTW, I dont believe being gay is 'normal', but I dont think it is a reason to deny gays the basic institutions and benefits that a straight couple has.

You "believe" that, yet you don't think that those with religious beliefs should use their beliefs when they vote. Interesting.
There is zero evidence that being gay is an abnormality - I have already shown that on this forum before.
Furthermore, even if being gay was genetic, performing gay acts is not an unconscious and uncontrollable behavior.

[BanginJimmy]

I would be happy with a flat SALES tax to replace what we have now. I dont like income tax. If im going through hard times, i can cut back and save, which would lower my taxes. If im wealthy and buying corvettes, im paying more taxes. It balances its self out.

The reason i think it would never happen............. because the government absolutely loathes privacy.

I would love to see the fairtax, but thats not happening anytime soon. A flat income tax, even a progressive one, will allow a far more stable tax system. It will also start to crumble the very powerful tax preparation industry.

[David88vert]

Why do they and why should they extend marriage benefits to anyone? what is the return on this "investment"?

Other than that, i support that idea completely.

People that pay in equally to SS, yet are gay, are not currently entitled to the money that their spouse paid in, when their spouse dies. That's just one of 1,138 reasons that the Federal government should not care if it is traditional or same-sex, as long as they are married.
The ROI is that you create more stability in society. Married people tend to end up in court less - especially for stupid stuff.

[David88vert]

I could live with that.

Long term, you would probably see more states repeal their amendments on their own, in an effort to keep gay couples from relocating to other states.

[David88vert]

I would love to see the fairtax, but thats not happening anytime soon. A flat income tax, even a progressive one, will allow a far more stable tax system. It will also start to crumble the very powerful tax preparation industry.

The 2011 proposal addressed a lot of the issues that I saw with the 2005 proposal. With more work, it may have a possibility of being a future system.

[Sinfix_15]

Long term, you would probably see more states repeal their amendments on their own, in an effort to keep gay couples from relocating to other states.

What if a gay couple get married in california and then moves to georgia?

[Vteckidd]

Should someone be allowed to marry their horse? or relative? if not, why?- NO

Would you be ok with same sex couples at your kid's school dance or prom?- YES

If priests refused to marry same sex couples, would you respect their rights?- YES

Should a christian bookstore be allowed to fire someone for being openly homosexual? why or why not? - NO

[Vteckidd]

Marriage licenses are issued per the state regulations through the county probate court. Each state has the responsibility of establishing who can get enter into a binding contract in their state. This should not be a federal issue, unless we are going to remove marriage licenses from being issued from the county courthouses, and move them to the federal courthouses.

In GA in 2004, voters specifically passed a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage. This amendment should be revoked at the state level if any legislation is to be passed for GA to recognize gay marriage. Federal law does not regulate the issuance of marriage licenses.

Marriage ceremonies that are held by religious institutions are symbolic, and are not legal binding contracts without a state issued marriage license. While officiates can be clergy or ordained ministers, it can just as easily be a Justice of the Peace, and hence, no religious connotation is needed over a marriage.

I posted this months, if not a year ago. I believe we were in agreement.

Marriage is a states rights issue, it should be decided per state since they are the ones issuing the marriage licenses.

Religion has NOTHING to do with it, religious ceremonies are not binding.

Sexual preference is NOT a civil right.

We should not be providing tax breaks or credits to people with families, regardless of sexuality.

/convo

[Sinfix_15]

I posted this months, if not a year ago. I believe we were in agreement.

Marriage is a states rights issue, it should be decided per state since they are the ones issuing the marriage licenses.

Religion has NOTHING to do with it, religious ceremonies are not binding.

Sexual preference is NOT a civil right.

We should not be providing tax breaks or credits to people with families, regardless of sexuality.

/convo

you've got my vote.

[David88vert]

What if a gay couple get married in california and then moves to georgia?

That would be hard currently, since they currently are not state recognized in CA.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that they get married in Vermont, where gay marriage is legal, and move to GA. They would still be married and still see the same federal benefits; however, if GA chose to not extend state benefits, then they would not receive those. Their choice to be gay, their choice to move to GA. There are consequences for actions, and they are not always positive or negative.

[Elbow]

I'll add to the religion debate about people fearing hell or punishment.

I was raised quite simply. Neither of my parents were very religious, we didn't go to church, I believed in God for one reason or the other, I didn't know details, but believed there was a God, I never feared hell. I was raised to respect people. I have not ONCE feared a decision would send me to hell but rather fear a decision may hurt someone, make me look bad, etc. If I was to go rob someone, I wouldn't fear hell, I'd feel guilty. My parents shared thoughts of heaven, also believed in god in some way shape or form, but I was never told to go to church or read the bible. I decided to start going to church when I was 17, quit going, go randomly now. I don't like a lot of what a modern day large church has to offer.

I think people have morals, non religious based morals. The way some act for example if the bible was proved to be fake, everyone would let out a sigh of relief then start killing and doing whatever they please. I don't see that as the case. The bible doesn't make people nice, fear of punishment doesn't make people nice, people can just be nice. Some may make decisions on religious punishment but I don't see that as holding the world together.

I know MANY who go to church and according to what they believe, sin left and right, then judge others for something else. Many people dislike church goers because of how many can be completely contradicting to their own beliefs.

/Rant. lol

[.blank cd]

Sexual preference is NOT a civil right

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

[Vteckidd]

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

This argument being made that not allowing gay couples to marry is some sort of infringement on "civil rights" is preposterous.

Someones SEXUAL PREFERENCE is NOT a civil right. Rosa Parks wasnt refused anything because she was a lesbian, it was because she was BLACK.

If you open the door to sexual preference being a protected RIGHT, then you are opening the door for ANY SEXUAL preference to be a "right".

EX:
"Im a pedophile, I have a RIGHT to sodomize young children, its protected. "

Where do you draw the line?

We can all agree that all races and creeds are created equal. Equality based on race shows no preference. We dont say "well blacks and latino are equal, but Asians, nope, youre 1/2 citizen". We agree all races are equal.

you cannot do that with sexual preference.

[.blank cd]

This argument being made that not allowing gay couples to marry is some sort of infringement on "civil rights" is preposterous.

Someones SEXUAL PREFERENCE is NOT a civil right. Rosa Parks wasnt refused anything because she was a lesbian, it was because she was BLACK.

If you open the door to sexual preference being a protected RIGHT, then you are opening the door for ANY SEXUAL preference to be a "right".

EX:
"Im a pedophile, I have a RIGHT to sodomize young children, its protected. "

Where do you draw the line?

We can all agree that all races and creeds are created equal. Equality based on race shows no preference. We dont say "well blacks and latino are equal, but Asians, nope, youre 1/2 citizen". We agree all races are equal.

you cannot do that with sexual preference.

Ok, so is skin color a right? Do I have a civil right to be black?

Pedophilia, for one isn't necessarily a crime in itself, nor is it bound by the same protections. You still couldn't enter into a legally binding contract with a minor, and even with sex, a minor isn't really a consenting adult.

[Vteckidd]

Ok, so is skin color a right? Do I have a civil right to be black?


As a black american, african american, whatever, you as a person have a certain level of civil rights. Marriage and Sexual Preference is not listed in any document as a protected right. until it is, there is no basis for that argument.

Sexual preference is NOT a "right" that gets an protection from any law.

"Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This Act provided that all those born in the United States were citizens of the United States (this provision was meant to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford), and required that "citizens of every race and color ... [have] full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens."

[Vteckidd]

Also, no one is taking away a right to be gay. People of color were having their rights taken away until the 1960s.

[.blank cd]

Marriage and Sexual Preference is not listed in any document as a protected right. until it is, there is no basis for that argument.
Marriage is no longer a civil right? When did they reneg on this?

[David88vert]

Marriage is no longer a civil right? When did they reneg on this?



Why don't we listen to what Obama has to say on the matter.

Obama: 'Marriage Is Not A Civil Right' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47JlBJDBVo)

[.blank cd]

Why don't we listen to what Obama has to say on the matter.

Obama: 'Marriage Is Not A Civil Right' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47JlBJDBVo)

Good thing he's learned since 2004. Lol

[.blank cd]

He did also say that he believed being able to transfer property was a civil right, and that it was a civil right to not be discriminated against. At least he was headed in the right direction.

As far as marriage goes, it is very much a civil right and a fundamental right, according to the 14th amendment and the Loving case. With that being said, its about time we ended the discrimination of a class of people entering into binding contracts with the governments based on sexual orientation, something that, like skin color, is not a choice for everyone, or, just not have those contracts or benefits at all

[David88vert]

Good thing he's learned since 2004. Lol

This was after he studied law. Are you saying that he wasn't an expert in 2004? Perhaps he wasn't ready to campaign then to lead the country in 2008?

[Vteckidd]

Marriage is no longer a civil right? When did they reneg on this?

No , marriage is NOT a right. Ive never considered it a right. you dont have the right to marry anything. Even heterosexual couples dont have any "RIGHT" to marriage. Somewhere a long the line, the FEDS and STATES started giving benefits to married couples (traditionally). That should stop.

There are 3 very twisted things going on that people mix together when speaking about gay marriage:

1) Marriage is performed at a religious entity- NOT binding in the eyes of the government
2) Marriage is granted a "license" by various state entities /counties/cities
3) Marriage is subsidized in the form of tax deductions/benefits at the FED level

Eliminate the Feds from being involved with ANYTHING marriage related, let the states decide which marriage they want to recognize, religious instutions can marry whoever they want as a private entity (churches should lose tax exempt status IMO)

[Vteckidd]

it is very much a civil right and a fundamental right, according to the 14th amendment and the Loving case. With that being said, its about time we ended the discrimination of a class of people entering into binding contracts with the governments based on sexual orientation, something that, like skin color, is not a choice for everyone, or, just not have those contracts or benefits at all

14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage. Sorry.

Gays can transfer whatever property they want to whoever they want. No one is stopping them.

Gays can go to Vermont to get married, just like you can go to FL to not pay income tax. FEDS have NOTHING to do with marriage. you can choose not to be gay, you cannot choose NOT to be black.

[.blank cd]

No , marriage is NOT a right.

Article 14 of the constitution and Chief Justice Earl Warren would like to have a word with you. Lol

[.blank cd]

You can choose not to be gay, you cannot choose NOT to be black.Some can choose not to be gay. Not all

Michael Jackson chose not to be black

[Elbow]

What if the country put this much thought, time, and effort into something like say cracking down on abusing the system and what not? Can you imagine?

[David88vert]

He did also say that he believed being able to transfer property was a civil right, and that it was a civil right to not be discriminated against. At least he was headed in the right direction.

As far as marriage goes, it is very much a civil right and a fundamental right, according to the 14th amendment and the Loving case. With that being said, its about time we ended the discrimination of a class of people entering into binding contracts with the governments based on sexual orientation, something that, like skin color, is not a choice for everyone, or, just not have those contracts or benefits at all

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Property is specifically listed in the EPC, so Obama is correct. Marriage is not listed in the EPC.

If you want to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, you must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified - namely that marriage was improperly recognized throughout history until now as the bond between a man and woman.

[.blank cd]

What if the country put this much thought, time, and effort into something like say cracking down on abusing the system and what not? Can you imagine?

Trust me, they do, but the minority is louder in those cases.

[Sinfix_15]

This was after he studied law. Are you saying that he wasn't an expert in 2004? Perhaps he wasn't ready to campaign then to lead the country in 2008?

or....... hear me out......

he was a dumb ass then and he is a dumb ass now. The only thing that changed was the person controlling the teleprompter.

[Sinfix_15]

Some can choose not to be gay. Not all

Michael Jackson chose not to be black

Oh its that easy....... so i'm a trip to lowes away from becoming a black man? Will the NAACP send me something in the mail telling me to vote democrat or do you have some type of picnic or initiation?

[David88vert]

Article 14 of the constitution and Chief Justice Earl Warren would like to have a word with you. Lol


Loving vs VA was interracial marriage - not same-sex marriage. It was a decision based upon racial discrimination, and as we all know, gay marriage does not have the involvement of race as an element. Big difference.
Justice Warren did proclaim his opinion that he thought that marriage is a civil right - and this comment will be used as a precedent in future discussion. Our current SCOTUS will have to decide if that opinion is correct or not though.

You should read the EPC, as you appear to not have read it.

[.blank cd]

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Property is specifically listed in the EPC, so Obama is correct. Marriage is not listed in the EPC.

Come on. Figured you guys were smarter than this...


“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."They decided that anti-miscegenation laws, similar to anti-gay marriage laws, violated that very Equal Protection Clause.

Do you disagree with his assessment?

[David88vert]

Some can choose not to be gay. Not all

Michael Jackson chose not to be black

You can choose your behaviors.

Michael Jackson was still black, no matter how much he bleached.

[.blank cd]

Loving vs VA was interracial marriage - not same-sex marriage. It was a decision based upon racial discrimination, and as we all know, gay marriage does not have the involvement of race as an element. Big difference.
Justice Warren did proclaim his opinion that he thought that marriage is a civil right - and this comment will be used as a precedent in future discussion. Our current SCOTUS will have to decide if that opinion is correct or not though.

You should read the EPC, as you appear to not have read it.

I've read it. A million times. How do you feel anti-miscegenation laws are different than anti-gay marriage laws?

[.blank cd]

You can choose your behaviors.

Some can choose to not be gay. Not all.

[David88vert]

Come on. Figured you guys were smarter than this...

They decided that anti-miscegenation laws, similar to anti-gay marriage laws, violated that very Equal Protection Clause.

Do you disagree with his assessment?

Justice Warren and the rest of the SCOTUS made a unanimous decision based upon RACE, not sexual orientation.

[.blank cd]

Justice Warren and the rest of the SCOTUS made a unanimous decision based upon RACE, not sexual orientation.

So what is the difference between race and sexual orientation?




Come on, you can say it. We know.

[David88vert]

I've read it. A million times. How do you feel anti-miscegenation laws are different than anti-gay marriage laws?

You cannot change your race. You can choose how to behave. Performing gay acts is an action/behavior. Being black/white is not an action/behavior - it is an immutable state.

[David88vert]

So what is the difference between race and sexual orientation?




Come on, you can say it. We know.

I've told you many times - you are just too dense to understand.

[David88vert]

Some can choose to not be gay. Not all.

You can choose who you have relations with, when you have them, and if you have them. They are not something that you do without consciousness.

[.blank cd]

You cannot change your race. You can choose how to behave. Performing gay acts is an action/behavior. Being black/white is not an action/behavior - it is an immutable state.

You can do better than that.

[.blank cd]

You can choose who you have relations with, when you have them, and if you have them. They are not something that you do without consciousness.

So in both cases, race and orientation, you admit that it's possible to change your public appearance. I can bleach my skin so people think I'm white, and I can sleep with girls so people think I'm straight.

[Sinfix_15]

So what is the difference between race and sexual orientation?




Come on, you can say it. We know.

If sexual orientation is not a behavior that can be controlled, why we do ever let sex offenders of any type out of jail? every sex crime should carry a life sentence or death penalty. If a pedophile likes 5 year old boys, clearly he has no control over that and should be permanently detained.

unless..... what if the pedophiles are born the way they are? then shouldnt we begin recognizing their civil rights as pedophiles rather than trying to rehabilitate them?

[David88vert]

You can do better than that.

It's fact that you cannot argue against. Behaviors cannot be immutable.

[.blank cd]

If sexual orientation is not a behavior that can be controlled, why we do ever let sex offenders of any type out of jail? every sex crime should carry a life sentence or death penalty. If a pedophile likes 5 year old boys, clearly he has no control over that and should be permanently detained.

unless..... what if the pedophiles are born the way they are? then shouldnt we begin recognizing their civil rights as pedophiles rather than trying to rehabilitate them?

Lets not change to out of context illegal behaviors just yet. I'm about to have a breakthrough....

[.blank cd]

It's fact that you cannot argue against. Behaviors cannot be immutable.

So orientation is a behavior that is a result of a conscious choice, is that what you're getting at?

[David88vert]

So in both cases, race and orientation, you admit that it's possible to change your public appearance. I can bleach my skin so people think I'm white, and I can sleep with girls so people think I'm straight.

It doesn't matter how much you bleach your skin, if you are black, you are still black. You cannot choose to be white, and really be white.

Who you choose to sleep with is up to you. Getting married is what is being discussed here. Stay on topic.

[Sinfix_15]

Lets not change to out of context illegal behaviors just yet. I'm about to have a breakthrough....

We decide what is and is not illegal..... maybe we got it wrong with pedophiles... maybe theyre born that way and should have their civil rights recognized.

[.blank cd]

It doesn't matter how much you bleach your skin, if you are black, you are still black. You cannot choose to be white, and really be white.

Who you choose to sleep with is up to you. Getting married is what is being discussed here. Stay on topic.

I'm very much on topic.

No matter how much I bleach my skin, I'm still black

No matter how much I sleep with girls, I'm still gay

Is that what you're getting at?

[.blank cd]

We decide what is and is not illegal..... maybe we got it wrong with pedophiles... maybe theyre born that way and should have their civil rights recognized.
Pedophilia is not a crime. It is not a sexual orientation. I'll move on to the illegal act of molestation and rape and why it's totally different in a minute.

[David88vert]

So orientation is a behavior that is a result of a conscious choice, is that what you're getting at?

I did not say that. You don't seem to have all of your brain cells working.

No matter what your sexual orientation is, that doesn't matter. Your actions are behaviors that you choose to act upon consciously. Actions have repercussions.
You cannot legally marry a same-sex partner, and you knew that when you chose to enter a relationship with that individual. That is the current state of the law, and if you want that to change, it should be done correctly - which is changing the law at the state level.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm very much on topic.

No matter how much I bleach my skin, I'm still black

No matter how much I sleep with girls, I'm still gay

Is that what you're getting at?

And how do we define who is and isnt gay? a telephone survey? Your race can be identified with your DNA... am i missing something or did we actually discover the "gay gene" now? By the testimony of pedophiles themselves, they too would proclaim that had no choice in the matter.

[bu villain]

So David, you believe being gay is defined solely by behavior? That seems like a very narrow definition. Wouldn't you agree that heterosexuality is not defined simply by behavior. Specifically, would you say someone only becomes heterosexual by having a sexual encounter with someone of the opposite sex and until then, their sexuality is undefined.

To the larger issue. The main reason for marriage being a legal contract with benefits is that marriage seems to act as a stabilizing factor for society. That includes family raising, increased financial security, decreased incarceration rates, etc. All of which can apply to gay marriages. Even many conservatives are starting to understand this.

[David88vert]

I'm very much on topic.

No matter how much I bleach my skin, I'm still black

No matter how much I sleep with girls, I'm still gay

Is that what you're getting at?

I have made my statements very clear. You just choose to ignore the truth.

[Sinfix_15]

So David, you believe being gay is defined solely by behavior? That seems like a very narrow definition. Wouldn't you agree that heterosexuality is not defined simply by behavior. Specifically, would you say someone only becomes heterosexual by having a sexual encounter with someone of the opposite sex and until then, their sexuality is undefined.

To the larger issue. The main reason for marriage being a legal contract with benefits is that marriage seems to act as a stabilizing factor for society. That includes family raising, increased financial security, decreased incarceration rates, etc. All of which can apply to gay marriages. Even many conservatives are starting to understand this.

As a single male with no incarceration rate, why do married couples deserve more financial security than me?

[.blank cd]

I did not say that. You don't seem to have all of your brain cells working.Oh they're working just fine.


No matter what your sexual orientation is, that doesn't matter. Your actions are behaviors that you choose to act upon consciously. Actions have repercussions.Hmmm. So I should expect to be discriminated based on something I don't have control over? Kinda like what happened before the 60s?


You cannot legally marry a same-sex partner, and you knew that when you chose to enter a relationship with that individual. That is the current state of the law, and if you want that to change, it should be done correctly - which is changing the law at the state level.
Guess all those black people shoulda thought about that before going and passing the Civil rights act huh? Lol

[bu villain]

To sinflix, I don't see why it even matters whether being gay is a choice or not. The goal is to produce a more stable society and marriage facilitates that regardless of what your sexual orientation is or what you say it is. Pedophilia is a different topic because children do not have the ability to consent to such a contract. It has nothing to do with whether pedophilia is a choice or not by the adult.

[.blank cd]

To the larger issue. The main reason for marriage being a legal contract with benefits is that marriage seems to act as a stabilizing factor for society. That includes family raising, increased financial security, decreased incarceration rates, etc. All of which can apply to gay marriages. Even many conservatives are starting to understand this.David understands it, but for the wrong, kinda dangerous reasons...

[bu villain]

As a single male with no incarceration rate, why do married couples deserve more financial security than me?

The financial security I alluded to is not a benefit bestowed upon married couples by the government. It is a side-effect of marriage itself and would exist whether there were marriage tax breaks or not. The tax breaks are simply an additional incentive for people to marry.

[Sinfix_15]

To sinflix, I don't see why it even matters whether being gay is a choice or not. The goal is to produce a more stable society and marriage facilitates that regardless of what your sexual orientation is or what you say it is. Pedophilia is a different topic because children do not have the ability to consent to such a contract. It has nothing to do with whether pedophilia is a choice or not by the adult.

So homosexuals couples are creating a more stable society and deserve financial benefits for doing so?



Call me crazy..... i cant get this shoe to fit.

[David88vert]

So David, you believe being gay is defined solely by behavior? That seems like a very narrow definition. Wouldn't you agree that heterosexuality is not defined simply by behavior. Specifically, would you say someone only becomes heterosexual by having a sexual encounter with someone of the opposite sex and until then, their sexuality is undefined.

To the larger issue. The main reason for marriage being a legal contract with benefits is that marriage seems to act as a stabilizing factor for society. That includes family raising, increased financial security, decreased incarceration rates, etc. All of which can apply to gay marriages. Even many conservatives are starting to understand this.

Sexual intercourse is the action/behavior - either hetro, or homo. There is no question - physical action is involved. There are plenty of people that are celibate - and would not be considered gay or straight.

We do not disagree that marriage is a stabilizer in society. My point is that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Voters in GA have made a choice to define marriage as between a man and woman only. "For better or worse", that is how it is here, at this current time. If GA voters want to reverse that, then they need to contact their representatives and senators here in GA and request that it be put on the ballot.

[.blank cd]

So homosexuals couples are creating a more stable society and deserve financial benefits for doing so?



Call me crazy..... i cant get this shoe to fit.

Why not?

[Sinfix_15]

The financial security I alluded to is not a benefit bestowed upon married couples by the government. It is a side-effect of marriage itself and would exist whether there were marriage tax breaks or not. The tax breaks are simply an additional incentive for people to marry.

With divorce rates as high as they currently are, is it wise for our government to offer incentives for people to get married? shouldnt the love and devotion of a partner be incentive enough?

[David88vert]

Oh they're working just fine.
Hmmm. So I should expect to be discriminated based on something I don't have control over? Kinda like what happened before the 60s?
Guess all those black people shoulda thought about that before going and passing the Civil rights act huh? Lol

You are grasping at straws.

Skin color is not the same as sexual orientation.

[.blank cd]

Sexual intercourse is the action/behavior - either hetro, or homo. There is no question - physical action is involved. There are plenty of people that are celibate - and would not be considered gay or straight.

We do not disagree that marriage is a stabilizer in society. My point is that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Voters in GA have made a choice to define marriage as between a man and woman only. "For better or worse", that is how it is here, at this current time. If GA voters want to reverse that, then they need to contact their representatives and senators here in GA and request that it be put on the ballot.

So only those gays in those certain states can not be discriminated against? Why should gay rights be a state issue and race rights be a federal issue?

[Sinfix_15]

Why not?

Gay people are stabilizing society??

can you even say that with a straight face......

right now...... just say that out loud and be honest with me....

you dont start laughing?

[.blank cd]

You are grasping at straws.

Skin color is not the same as sexual orientation.

How is it not? Thats what Ive been trying to get from you and you have yet to come to a conclusion.

Or at least yet to state one. But I know what it is.

[.blank cd]

Gay people are stabilizing society??

can you even say that with a straight face......

in your computer chair right now...... just say that out loud and be honest with me....

you dont start laughing?

No. How are they not? You have an example?

[Sinfix_15]

No. How are they not? You have an example?

Tell me how they are?

[David88vert]

So homosexuals couples are creating a more stable society and deserve financial benefits for doing so?



Call me crazy..... i cant get this shoe to fit.

Ok, you're crazy.

There is nothing wrong with giving equal federal tax breaks to couples who enter into contracts - whether is it a married couple, a civil union between two of the same-sex, or a business partnership. That is just a management decision being made by the government.

[David88vert]

So only those gays in those certain states can not be discriminated against? Why should gay rights be a state issue and race rights be a federal issue?

States make their own laws.

Actions/behaviors are not immutable. Race is an immutable characteristic. Invest in a dictionary.

[.blank cd]

David.

Accepted black people behavior/actions, up until June 1967, was to sleep with black people. This is what they were legally allowed to do. There were consequences otherwise.

Are you suggesting that accepted gay behavior is to sleep with the opposite sex until they get the law changed at state level?

How are the two different, draw your conclusion and stop beating around the bush.

[David88vert]

Gay people are stabilizing society??

can you even say that with a straight face......

right now...... just say that out loud and be honest with me....

you dont start laughing?

Couples are more stable that individuals - regardless of sexual orientation.

[.blank cd]

I know what immutable means and I'm trying to see how you believe it applies to race and not orientation.

Do you believe heterosexuality is an immutable charachteristic?

[Sinfix_15]

Ok, you're crazy.

There is nothing wrong with giving equal federal tax breaks to couples who enter into contracts - whether is it a married couple, a civil union between two of the same-sex, or a business partnership. That is just a management decision being made by the government.

I do not agree with this and i dont think domestic violence statistics would support this claim. My own personal belief is that the government's "return on that investment" is more procreation = more voters/tax payers..... i dont agree with that either..... but i disagree with it even more when applied to gay couples.

I dont think any married couple should receive government benefits period.

[David88vert]

How is it not? Thats what Ive been trying to get from you and you have yet to come to a conclusion.

Or at least yet to state one. But I know what it is.

I have stated it many times.
Immutable characteristic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_characteristic)

[Sinfix_15]

Couples are more stable that individuals - regardless of sexual orientation.

Do not agree.

[.blank cd]

I do not agree with this and i dont think domestic violence statistics would support this claim.

You don't have to be married to commit domestic violence

[Sinfix_15]

You don't have to be married to commit domestic violence

Speaking to the "society stabilizing" effect that couples are having on this world.

[David88vert]

I know what immutable means and I'm trying to see how you believe it applies to race and not orientation.

Do you believe heterosexuality is an immutable charachteristic?

How many times can you not understand that your skin color is not an action/behavior?

Heterosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. You choose who you have a relationship with, or if at all.

[.blank cd]

Speaking to the "society stabilizing" effect that couples are having on this world.

A two-parent environment is shown to have an overall societal benefit

[David88vert]

I dont think any married couple should receive government benefits period.

Management decision to be determined by the government. Talk to your Congressman.

[David88vert]

Do not agree.

Your personal opinion.

I know plenty of gay couples that are fine members of society, and not one of them is "Clyde and Clyde" or "Bonnie and Bonnie".

[.blank cd]

How many times can you not understand that your skin color is not an action/behavior?

Heterosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. You choose who you have a relationship with, or if at all.

Sexual orientation is not a behavior. Sexual intercourse is a behavior.

Keep trying. Almost there.

[David88vert]

You don't have to be married to commit domestic violence

Agreed. And I don't see many gay people being charged with domestic violence either.

[Sinfix_15]

A two-parent environment is shown to have an overall societal benefit

I would have loved to be the kid in school with two daddies..... no doubt that would have accelerated my development.

[David88vert]

A two-parent environment is shown to have an overall societal benefit

Agreed. There have been many studies on it.

[David88vert]

Sexual orientation is not a behavior. Sexual intercourse is a behavior.


Correct. Without intercourse though, one is celibate, not gay or straight.

[bu villain]

So homosexuals couples are creating a more stable society and deserve financial benefits for doing so?

Call me crazy..... i cant get this shoe to fit.

Yes married homosexuals are more stable than single homosexuals. The deserve financial benefits equal to what straight couples get because the value to society is the same.


Sexual intercourse is the action/behavior - either hetro, or homo. There is no question - physical action is involved. There are plenty of people that are celibate - and would not be considered gay or straight.

We do not disagree that marriage is a stabilizer in society. My point is that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Voters in GA have made a choice to define marriage as between a man and woman only. "For better or worse", that is how it is here, at this current time. If GA voters want to reverse that, then they need to contact their representatives and senators here in GA and request that it be put on the ballot.

I agree sexual intercourse is a behavior but I do not believe that is the sole definer of who is gay and who is not. I think most people would agree you can be straight before you lose your virginity. The societal benefits of marriage do not require that the couple have sex so why should that even enter the equation. I can respect your states rights position even though I don't agree with it.


With divorce rates as high as they currently are, is it wise for our government to offer incentives for people to get married? shouldnt the love and devotion of a partner be incentive enough?

High divorce rates may lessen the good impact of marriage but do not completely nullify it either. Whether love and devotion should be incentive enough is irrelevant. Government has to deal with reality and so they incentivize the things they want more of.


Gay people are stabilizing society??

can you even say that with a straight face......

right now...... just say that out loud and be honest with me....

you dont start laughing?

David already answered this but I will reiterate... gay marriage doesn't make people gay. The questions is are married gay people more stable than single gay people? I believe the answer is yes.

[.blank cd]

Correct. Without intercourse though, one is celibate, not gay or straight.

Wrong. I can go through life with a disposition to females and never have sex once. Celibacy does not negate orientation.

[David88vert]

I agree sexual intercourse is a behavior but I do not believe that is the sole definer of who is gay and who is not. I think most people would agree you can be straight before you lose your virginity. The societal benefits of marriage do not require that the couple have sex so why should that even enter the equation. I can respect your states rights position even though I don't agree with it.


Even if one loses their virginity heterosexually, that does not mean that they must always be heterosexual. I've known a man who was in a homosexual relationship for many years, then decided to get married to a woman he knew, and they had a child, who was one of my friends. He was straight when he was in his early 20's, then decided he was gay, and in this late 30's got married. That is not an immutable characteristic. His civil rights to marry were never infringed upon, as he did get married - just not to his same-sex partner that he had previously.

[David88vert]

Wrong. I can go through life with a disposition to females and never have sex once. Celibacy does not negate orientation.

You are going to claim you're gay when you haven't been having any intercourse? (Opposite angle)
Sexual orientation is not fixed and unchanging - neither is celibacy.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes married homosexuals are more stable than single homosexuals. The deserve financial benefits equal to what straight couples get because the value to society is the same.

The value cant be the *same*..... there's this thing straight couples can do that gay couples cant. Should we prorate the benefits?




High divorce rates may lessen the good impact of marriage but do not completely nullify it either. Whether love and devotion should be incentive enough is irrelevant. Government has to deal with reality and so they incentivize the things they want more of.


Sounds like horse shit to me. We should change the incentive to be intended for parents... not couples. I can only speak for myself...... but i am much more likely to go crazy with a woman living under my roof.

[David88vert]

The value cant be the *same*..... there's this thing straight couples can do that gay couples cant. Should we prorate the benefits?

Sounds like horse shit to me. We should change the incentive to be intended for parents... not couples. I can only speak for myself...... but i am much more likely to go crazy with a woman living under my roof.

That's the issue. You can have heterosexual couples and they get the spousal benefits whether or not they have children. Homosexual couples do not have the ability to have the same spousal benefits currently.

[Sinfix_15]

That's the issue. You can have heterosexual couples and they get the spousal benefits whether or not they have children. Homosexual couples do not have the ability to have the same spousal benefits currently.

We shouldnt fix a problem by adding more problem to it....... couples should not get benefits, period. Parents.... sure. Solves two problems..... saves money, shuts gays up.

[.blank cd]

You are going to claim you're gay when you haven't been having any intercourse? (Opposite angle)
Sexual orientation is not fixed and unchanging - neither is celibacy.Absolutely.

Your example may be bisexual, he may be struggling with his identity. Who knows.

[bu villain]

Even if one loses their virginity heterosexually, that does not mean that they must always be heterosexual. I've known a man who was in a homosexual relationship for many years, then decided to get married to a woman he knew, and they had a child, who was one of my friends. He was straight when he was in his early 20's, then decided he was gay, and in this late 30's got married. That is not an immutable characteristic. His civil rights to marry were never infringed upon, as he did get married - just not to his same-sex partner that he had previously.

Just to be clear. I'm not really concerned if it is a "civil right" or "immutable". To me, the reasons for allowing gay marriage don't require someone to always be gay for all time.


You are going to claim you're gay when you haven't been having any intercourse? (Opposite angle)
Sexual orientation is not fixed and unchanging - neither is celibacy.

I certainly would claim to be straight without having intercourse so I don't see why it would be different for gays.


The value cant be the *same*..... there's this thing straight couples can do that gay couples cant. Should we prorate the benefits?

I don't think having children is a benefit that needs incintivizing. I think overpopulation is a bigger concern.


Sounds like horse shit to me. We should change the incentive to be intended for parents... not couples. I can only speak for myself...... but i am much more likely to go crazy with a woman living under my roof.

But as I stated before, it is not just about raising children.


We shouldnt fix a problem by adding more problem to it....... couples should not get benefits, period. Parents.... sure. Solves two problems..... saves money, shuts gays up.

Again, its not ONLY about raising children. Further, how would it shut gays up? They can be parents.

[bu villain]

In general Sin, I think not having any legal marriages is more easily defended than only having straight marriages.

[Sinfix_15]

Just to be clear. I'm not really concerned if it is a "civil right" or "immutable". To me, the reasons for allowing gay marriage don't require someone to always be gay for all time.



I certainly would claim to be straight without having intercourse so I don't see why it would be different for gays.



I don't think having children is a benefit that needs incintivizing. I think overpopulation is a bigger concern.



But as I stated before, it is not just about raising children.



Again, its not ONLY about raising children. Further, how would it shut gays up? They can be parents.

Ok, so since overpopulation is a concern, should we quit giving so many benefits to parents or "incentivizing" something that most commonly leads to procreation?

or maybe...... just maybe.....

i know im about to go way out on a limb here......

but maybe the government should just GTFO out of our moral lives completely and quit trying to legislate life paths for supposedly free people.

[bu villain]

Ok, so since overpopulation is a concern, should we quit giving so many benefits to parents or "incentivizing" something that most commonly leads to procreation?

or maybe...... just maybe.....

i know im about to go way out on a limb here......

but maybe the government should just GTFO out of our moral lives completely and quit trying to legislate life paths for supposedly free people.

I think a lot of people (particularly libertarians) would agree with you on both fronts. I personally wouldn't mind either but there is no one correct path and that's where democracy comes in. Turns out, most people are still in favor of it so here we are.

[David88vert]

Absolutely.

Your example may be bisexual, he may be struggling with his identity. Who knows.

My example is an actual person, who was gay and was not denied the ability to get married - the same as any other gay person. Gay people are free to get married - they are not being discriminated against, as they can get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex in some state, or can marry either sex in others.

[David88vert]

Just to be clear. I'm not really concerned if it is a "civil right" or "immutable". To me, the reasons for allowing gay marriage don't require someone to always be gay for all time.


Gays can get married.
In some states, marriage licenses are available to same-sex couples. In other states, they are allowed to marry opposite sex individuals.
There is not a state that does not allow them to marry anyone at all.

[David88vert]

In general Sin, I think not having any legal marriages is more easily defended than only having straight marriages.

That is up to the voters in each state to decide. 9 states have decided one way, 39 have decided the other way. 30 of them had enough of a majority to actually amend their state constitutions.
It would appear that the vast majority feel strongly enough about it to actually vote on it with a clear decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banni ng_same-sex_unions_by_type

Specifically in GA in 2004, 76% voted to change the state constitution to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Constitutional_Amendment_1_(2004)

The text of the amendment states:
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.

(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.

The amendment was challenged in court.
On May 16, 2006 a lower court in Georgia struck down the amendment, but on July 7, 2006 the Supreme Court of Georgia overturned the lower court thus leaving the amendment as part of the Georgia Constitution.

[.blank cd]

My example is an actual person, who was gay and was not denied the ability to get married - the same as any other gay person. Gay people are free to get married - they are not being discriminated against, as they can get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex in some state, or can marry either sex in others.

Right. Just like black people were free to get married before 1967. They just had to get married to another black person.

[David88vert]

Right. Just like black people were free to get married before 1967. They just had to get married to another black person.

You are dense. That was racial. Race is immutable. I have explained this to you many times, and you can't seem to comprehend it.

Let's look at this another way. How about bigamy and polygamy? Those are entered into by consenting adults, yet both are illegal in the US. Bigamy is a misdemeanor, and polygamy is a felony (Model Penal Code section 230.1). Do you believe that bigamy and polygamy are civil rights that are being denied?
Should these laws be overturned, so that multiple gay and straight people can legally marry each other? 2 gay guys can marry each other, while each is already married to 10+ other guys? Everyone can just marry anyone else, and as many as they like. You and your wife could have had 30+ people all walk down the aisle together, and you could have all just gotten married to each other. After all, it wouldn't have hurt anyone else, right?

Marriage has always had the definition of one man and one woman. These "gay rights" advocates are not seeking to get spousal benefits - that could have been accomplished by them asking for civil unions. They are specifically looking to change the definition or marriage to their "new normal". Here's the thing though - it's not new or normal. Homosexuality has been around as long as civilization, and modern society has not defined it as normal. If anything, they have clarified that it is not, through multiple amendments passed all over the country in the last decade.

48 states have taken definitive action concerning this subject or marriage - and the vast majority of them have addressed it within the last decade. I see posts in threads where people say, "America is a democracy, let the people vote on it." - well, the people have voted. Now, I see the same people saying, "That's not the result I wanted. I have a right to be gay and change the definition of marriage, because I didn't get what I wanted."

My earlier stated solution is the obvious solution. Get the federal government out of marriage, give all married couples federal tax benefits and spousal benefits. Leave the definition of marriage to the states, and let them compete to attract these couples to their states.

[Sinfix_15]

You are dense. That was racial. Race is immutable. I have explained this to you many times, and you can't seem to comprehend it.

Let's look at this another way. How about bigamy and polygamy? Those are entered into by consenting adults, yet both are illegal in the US. Bigamy is a misdemeanor, and polygamy is a felony (Model Penal Code section 230.1). Do you believe that bigamy and polygamy are civil rights that are being denied?
Should these laws be overturned, so that multiple gay and straight people can legally marry each other? 2 gay guys can marry each other, while each is already married to 10+ other guys? Everyone can just marry anyone else, and as many as they like. You and your wife could have had 30+ people all walk down the aisle together, and you could have all just gotten married to each other. After all, it wouldn't have hurt anyone else, right?

Marriage has always had the definition of one man and one woman. These "gay rights" advocates are not seeking to get spousal benefits - that could have been accomplished by them asking for civil unions. They are specifically looking to change the definition or marriage to their "new normal". Here's the thing though - it's not new or normal. Homosexuality has been around as long as civilization, and modern society has not defined it as normal. If anything, they have clarified that it is not, through multiple amendments passed all over the country in the last decade.

48 states have taken definitive action concerning this subject or marriage - and the vast majority of them have addressed it within the last decade. I see posts in threads where people say, "America is a democracy, let the people vote on it." - well, the people have voted. Now, I see the same people saying, "That's not the result I wanted. I have a right to be gay and change the definition of marriage, because I didn't get what I wanted."

My earlier stated solution is the obvious solution. Get the federal government out of marriage, give all married couples federal tax benefits and spousal benefits. Leave the definition of marriage to the states, and let them compete to attract these couples to their states.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__WPqJ5QgbtM/TI0cSPFxVWI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/Q56zcuq1vto/s200/ace+of+spades+2.jpg

[.blank cd]

You are dense. That was racial. Race is immutable. I have explained this to you many times, and you can't seem to comprehend it.no. You haven't explained why you believe race is immutable and orientation is not? You gave a flimsy example of someone who changed his public appearance. I can change my public appearance from black to white if I choose to as well. Why do you believe race is immutable and orientation is not?

My opinion on whether polygamy should be allowed doesn't really matter. It's legal in a lot of countries already. If someone conducts a thorough study on it and finds it doesn't restrict the growth and development of resulting children, and its a decision of conscious, rational adults, then sure, the legality of it should be examined.


Marriage has always had the definition of one man and one woman. These "gay rights" advocates are not seeking to get spousal benefits - that could have been accomplished by them asking for civil unions. They are specifically looking to change the definition or marriage to their "new normal". Here's the thing though - it's not new or normal. Homosexuality has been around as long as civilization, and modern society has not defined it as normal. If anything, they have clarified that it is not, through multiple amendments passed all over the country in the last decade.the actual definition of marriage is not orientation based. Never has been. Religion and thus the courts "redefined" it when they made it strictly male/female


48 states have taken definitive action concerning this subject or marriage - and the vast majority of them have addressed it within the last decade. I see posts in threads where people say, "America is a democracy, let the people vote on it." - well, the people have voted. Now, I see the same people saying, "That's not the result I wanted. I have a right to be gay and change the definition of marriage, because I didn't get what I wanted."

My earlier stated solution is the obvious solution. Get the federal government out of marriage, give all married couples federal tax benefits and spousal benefits. Leave the definition of marriage to the states, and let them compete to attract these couples to their states.Civil rights has not been and should not be a states rights issue. If we left it up to the states, I would not be surprised if a state like Mississippi still had slavery la....


Son of a bitch...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mississippi-officially-ratifies-13th-amendment-banning-slavery-148-years-later/


I don't put people's rights and discrimination laws on the same legal plane as toll roads and speed limit signs. Lol.

[Sinfix_15]

Civil rights has not been and should not be a states rights issue. If we left it up to the states, I would not be surprised if a state like Mississippi still had slavery la....



if a state like mississippi wants slavery then " THEY DESERVE A VOTE "..... right??

Obama thinks a vote can strip me of my rights.... whats the difference?

[David88vert]

no. You haven't explained why you believe race is immutable and orientation is not? You gave a flimsy example of someone who changed his public appearance. I can change my public appearance from black to white if I choose to as well. Why do you believe race is immutable and orientation is not?

My opinion on whether polygamy should be allowed doesn't really matter. It's legal in a lot of countries already. If someone conducts a thorough study on it and finds it doesn't restrict the growth and development of resulting children, and its a decision of conscious, rational adults, then sure, the legality of it should be examined.

the actual definition of marriage is not orientation based. Never has been. Religion and thus the courts "redefined" it when they made it strictly male/female

Civil rights has not been and should not be a states rights issue. If we left it up to the states, I would not be surprised if a state like Mississippi still had slavery la....


Son of a bitch...

Mississippi Officially Ratifies 13th Amendment Banning Slavery… 148 Years Later | Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/online/mississippi-officially-ratifies-13th-amendment-banning-slavery-148-years-later/)


I don't put people's rights and discrimination laws on the same legal plane as toll roads and speed limit signs. Lol.

For someone who claims to be so smart, you continue to show the inability to use logic or reason.

I have explained to you that race is an immutable characteristic, and that the court has declared it immutable. That is a legal description.
The law is established, and is the definitions are clear. It is on you to provide a compelling argument as to why sexual orientation is immutable - not for me to explain why it is not. You should know this already.
For sake of argument, let's say that it was determined it was immutable (which it currently not declared to be), it would simply mean that you have a right to have an sexual attraction - not to marriage. Sexual attraction is not a requirement for marriage. Many heterosexual couples do not have sexual attraction to each other and still get married and have kids. Arguing that sexual attraction is the same as marriage rights is a futile attempt to confuse and obfuscate the law.

You cannot change your race - period. Won't happen, no matter how much you try. You can't be that stupid to think that you can. If I get some black paint, and paint my body, would that make me an African-American, and would the NAACP welcome me with open arms as a black man?

Most western countries, including the US, ban bigamy and polygamy. You aren't as educated as you claim to be. Bigamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigamy)

marriage - n. - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc
It has been defined as man-to-woman since this country was founded and the Constitution was ratified. You are 100% wrong in your statement.

No one is being denied a civil right. There is no civil right of "you can legally marry the person that you are sexually attracted to". You still don't get it.

Speed limits and stop signs are on the OCGA - not the GA State Constitution. You really don't understand anything about the law at all.

It's up to the voters to decide what they want in their state. This isn't slavery, and there is a process for dealing with issues like this. If the process finds that the voters want gay marriage, like in ME and VT, so be it. If the process finds that the voters don't want it, like in GA and AL, then so be it. Circumventing democracy is not the answer.

[.blank cd]

Like I've said. You haven't explained why you believe orientation isn't immutable. Orientation is immutable, like race, like gender. Despite what you say, science currently agrees with me. All you've said is that you can change your public appearance of race and orientation. You can not change your orientation. Period. Polygamy is legal in many countries. If you think otherwise, you're denying reality again.

[.blank cd]

For someone who claims to be so smart, you continue to show the inability to use logic or reason.

I have explained to you that race is an immutable characteristic, and that the court has declared it immutable. That is a legal description.Facts please?


marriage - n. - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc
It has been defined as man-to-woman since this country was founded and the Constitution was ratified. You are 100% wrong in your statement.Youre wrong again. Lol. Try to keep up.

According to Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual of married persons : wedlock c : the whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union


No one is being denied a civil right. There is no civil right of "you can legally marry the person that you are sexually attracted to". You still don't get it.Marriage is a civil right, I don't understand what's so complicated about that. Lol.


Speed limits and stop signs are on the OCGA - not the GA State Constitution. You really don't understand anything about the law at all.Seems like I understand it more than you do. Lol

[Echonova]

Facts please?

Youre wrong again. Lol. Try to keep up.

According to Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual of married persons : wedlock c : the whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union

Marriage is a civil right, I don't understand what's so complicated about that. Lol.

Seems like I understand it more than you do. LolSeriously... You just made everyone of his points.

[Echonova]

But I digest.

[David88vert]

Like I've said. You haven't explained why you believe orientation isn't immutable. Orientation is immutable, like race, like gender. Despite what you say, science currently agrees with me. All you've said is that you can change your public appearance of race and orientation. You can not change your orientation. Period. Polygamy is legal in many countries. If you think otherwise, you're denying reality again.

Show me where science has conclusively proven that sexual orientation is immutable. Explain how people that were attracted to men, later find that they no longer like men, but prefer women. Immutability does not change by definition.
Even if it was immutable though, that still has no bearing on the act of marriage.
You could be sexually attracted/oriented to a horse - but you can't marry it.
You could be sexually attracted/oriented to a hole in a wall - but you can't marry it.
You can marry an adult of the opposite sex in GA, or an adult of either sex in MA, regardless of whether or not you are sexually attracted to the other person.

Here's a snippet from ""The Importance of Immutability" - Professor Sharona Hoffman of Washington University (Professor of Law) :
"According to the federal courts and the EEOC, Title VII does not prohibit employers from making adverse employment decisions based on sexual orientation. Scientific research has not proven conclusively whether sexual orientation is a biological trait that is an accident of birth, but it seems always to be fundamental to personal identity. Moreover, many homosexual individuals report that they experience discrimination in the workplace. As of 2009, twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have recognized the severity of the problem and passed legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. At the federal level, Congress has repeatedly considered the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would extend protected status to sexual orientation, but has never passed it. At this time, only federal employees are protected against sexual orientation discrimination by federal mandate under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and Executive Order 13087."


Next item that you don't understand:

Polygamy is legal in some countries - but the majority of western countries (like the US) do not allow it. Are you a backwoods kind of fellow?

See the list:
Australia: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment.
Belgium: Illegal. 5 to 10 years imprisonment.
Brazil: Illegal. 2 to 6 years imprisonment.
Canada: Illegal under the Criminal Code, sect 293.
China: Illegal (but tolerated for some minorities, such as Tibetans, in some rural areas in the South West) .
Colombia Illegal with exceptions (such as religion). Although bigamy no longer exists as a lone figure in the Colombian judicial code marrying someone new without dissolving an earlier marriage may yield to other felonies such as civil status forgery or suppression of information.
Egypt: Legal if first wife consents
Eritrea: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment.
All the 27 countries of the European Union : Illegal.
Iceland: Illegal according to the Icelandic Act on Marriage No. 31/1993, Art. 11.
Ghana: Illegal. Up to six months imprisonment.
Republic of Ireland: Bigamy is a statutory offence. It is committed by a person who, being married to another person, goes through a ceremony capable of producing a valid marriage with a third person. The offence is created by section 57 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. This section replaces section 26 of the Act 10 Geo. 4 c. 34 for the Republic of Ireland.
Israel: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment.
Iran: Legal with consent of first wife, rarely practiced.
India: Legal only for Muslims. Up 10 years of imprisonment for others.
Libya: Illegal. Possible 5 years of imprisonment
Malaysia: Permitted for Muslims; required to obtain judicial consent, show financial capability, and several strict conditions. Some variation in law between states (family law relating to non-Muslims is under federal jurisdiction).
Maldives: Permitted for anyone.
Malta: Illegal under the Marriage Act of 1975, section 6.
Netherlands: Illegal. Up to 6 years imprisonment. If the new partner is aware of the bigamy he or she can be imprisoned for a maximum of 4 years.
New Zealand: Illegal under section 205 of the Crimes Act 1961. Up to 15 years imprisonment.
Morocco: Permitted for Muslims, restrictions apply.
Pakistan: Polygamy in Pakistan is permitted with restrictions.
Saudi Arabia: Bigamy or Polygamy is legal.
South Africa: Legalized for indigenous, black traditionalists by the Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998.
Somalia: Polygamy is legal at marriage courts; long standing tradition.
Tunisia: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment
Turkey: Illegal. Up to 5 years imprisonment
United Kingdom: Illegal, although marriages performed abroad may be recognised for some legal purposes United States: Illegal in every state. Penalty up to 5 years.
Uzbekistan: Illegal.

[David88vert]

Facts please?



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Read it. Luckily for you, the US EEOC has Cliff Notes for you.
Facts About Race/Color Discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-race.html)

"Discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic associated with race, such as skin color, hair texture, or certain facial features violates Title VII, even though not all members of the race share the same characteristic."



Youre wrong again. Lol. Try to keep up.
According to Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual of married persons : wedlock c : the whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union


Re-read the very first line:
"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law "

As for you saying that I was wrong, see Dictionary.com: Marriage | Define Marriage at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage?s=t)
Again, first line. "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

You might want to read up on the history of marriage in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States



Marriage is a civil right, I don't understand what's so complicated about that. Lol.

Actually, the right to marry is legally considered a fundamental right. Fundamental rights transcend jurisdiction, civil rights are granted by a jurisdiction. Classification of a right as fundamental invokes specific legal tests used by courts to determine the carefully constrained conditions under which the US government and the state governments may impose limitations on these rights. In legal contexts, it is generally determined whether rights are to be considered fundamental by examining the historical foundations of those rights, and determining whether their protection was part of a longstanding tradition (i.e. - marriage being between a man and a woman).

If you really want to focus on calling it a civil right, quote the right case: Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)

Gay people can still get married, I don't understand what's so complicated about that.



Seems like I understand it more than you do. Lol

You obviously don't understand the difference between constitutional law and statutory law, so it is impossible for you to understand more than I do.

Constitutional law has higher authority than statutory law. Statutes can be and most often are adopted by the state legislature and if a statute is deemed by the courts of the state to be a violation of the state constitution, then the statute is unconstitutional. But the state constitutions are adopted by the voters of the state themselves. The process of amending our GA state Constitution is much harder than the process of passing a bill through the GA state legislature.

Voters had to specifically vote to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. The reason for that was to prevent the GA courts from legalizing gay marriage via an "interpretation" of the GA State Constitution. Once the state constitution explicitly stated that gay marriage is banned, then the courts cannot render that interpretation.

[David88vert]

Seriously... You just made everyone of his points.

He tends to do that a lot without realizing it. He's about to do it again. Watch.

[.blank cd]

Seriously... You just made everyone of his points.

How do you figure? All I see is him confirming my points. Watch closely....

[Sinfix_15]

How do you figure? All I see is him confirming my points. Watch closely....

I dont see that at all.

[.blank cd]

Show me where science has conclusively proven that sexual orientation is immutable. Explain how people that were attracted to men, later find that they no longer like men, but prefer women. Immutability does not change by definition.
Even if it was immutable though, that still has no bearing on the act of marriage.You go on later to establish that you don't really know what immutability means, so I'll address it there...

You could be sexually attracted/oriented to a horse - but you can't marry it.
You could be sexually attracted/oriented to a hole in a wall - but you can't marry it.How do we go from relationships between consenting adults to inanimate objects and illegal activity? This is how the right keeps losing the debate, so I'm not gonna address it any further.



Next item that you don't understand:Hasnt been an item I haven't understood yet. You on the other hand....


Polygamy is legal in some countriesThats all you needed to say.

[Sinfix_15]

I honestly hope i dont live long enough to see the world become anything like what liberal democrats want it to be.

[.blank cd]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Read it. Luckily for you, the US EEOC has Cliff Notes for you.
Facts About Race/Color Discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-race.html)

"Discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic [b]associated with race[/b, such as skin color, hair texture, or certain facial features violates Title VII, even though not all members of the race share the same characteristic."I think the italicized and bold parts say more than I could. Unless you need it explained.


Re-read the very first line:
"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law "Lets not cherry-pick here. Bad for your argument. Read the rest.


You might want to read up on the history of marriage in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_StatesWhy don't you read about the history of marriage in general?





Gay people can still get married, I don't understand what's so complicated about that.Poor argument again. Gay people do not enjoy the same freedoms as straight people, and that's precisely why there's a court case going on right now.


You obviously don't understand the difference between constitutional law and statutory law, so it is impossible for you to understand more than I do.Believe me, I understand it quite clearly

[.blank cd]

I dont see that at all.

He does it every time he tries to argue with me. He'll try to back up his points with facts that I already show him. Lol

[.blank cd]

I honestly hope i dont live long enough to see the world become anything like what liberal democrats want it to be.

Here you go again.

What in the world does liberal democrat mean to you, because the way you explain it rarely exists in society.

[Sinfix_15]

Here you go again.

What in the world does liberal democrat mean to you, because the way you explain it rarely exists in society.

I'll make a list later.

[.blank cd]

David, what it comes down to is this: While its noble that you want gays to be able to marry freely, you're still arguing from a "gay is a choice" platform, and its not. Science knows its not. Christian conservatives get beat down with this fact every time it gets brought up, so it's kinda time we stop using this fallacious argument. And it's great that states have rights and everything, but when it comes to ending the systematic discrimination of an entire class of people across the nation equally, that's what we have the federal government for. They ended race discrimination, gender discrimination, and the time for orientation discrimination to end is at hand.

[.blank cd]

I'll make a list later.

Just remember, the world as you know it today was created by someone who would have been a "liberal" today

[David88vert]

David, what it comes down to is this: While its noble that you want gays to be able to marry freely, you're still arguing from a "gay is a choice" platform, and its not. Science knows its not. Christian conservatives get beat down with this fact every time it gets brought up, so it's kinda time we stop using this fallacious argument. And it's great that states have rights and everything, but when it comes to ending the systematic discrimination of an entire class of people across the nation equally, that's what we have the federal government for. They ended race discrimination, gender discrimination, and the time for orientation discrimination to end is at hand.


You go on later to establish that you don't really know what immutability means, so I'll address it there...
How do we go from relationships between consenting adults to inanimate objects and illegal activity? This is how the right keeps losing the debate, so I'm not gonna address it any further.


Hasnt been an item I haven't understood yet. You on the other hand....

Thats all you needed to say.


I think the italicized and bold parts say more than I could. Unless you need it explained.

Lets not cherry-pick here. Bad for your argument. Read the rest.

Why don't you read about the history of marriage in general?




Poor argument again. Gay people do not enjoy the same freedoms as straight people, and that's precisely why there's a court case going on right now.

Believe me, I understand it quite clearly

Look above - you have presented exactly zero facts, only your own opinions.

Everyone else sees this but you - but you still can't register a clue.
You ignore all facts that don't fit with your ideals.
You have not presented a compelling legal argument as to why the state constitutions amendments are to be nullified. THAT is what the SCOTUS is evaluating, and they would laugh you out of the courtroom with what you have typed so far.

If you want to legalize gay marriage in GA, there is a proper process to doing it - and that is to have the voter amend the state constitution - again. That is the only correct course of action. That won't hinge on whether sexual orientation is immutable or not. No one is saying, "You can't be gay" or "You can't have this job because you are gay". The state has a law that says, "only opposite sex couples (1 and 1) can get a state issued marriage license". An action/behavior will never been an immutable characteristic, as it can always be changed by its very nature of being an action/behavior.

You've shown quite well that you don't know law or science in even its most basic constructs by your lack of ability to formulate a concessive, effective argument for your stated position.


As for "gay is a choice" and "sexual orientation is immutable" - you keep come back to these topics, while it is not really relevant in the current legal discussion. The SCOTUS is not looking to listen to inconclusive scientific date, just legal distinctions.

Have you ever heard the term "LUG"? It's lesbian-until-graduation. Women who practice lesbianism until they graduate, then get married and are straight. Which are they - gay or straight? If sexual orientation is immutable, logic would say that they would either continue to practice lesbianism, or would have not started it in the first place. If their sexual attraction was so strong that it was immutable, then they would not have a choice, and would not CHOOSE who they had relationships with (action/behavior). The ability to choose and the subsequent choice to change orientation is not symptomatic of an immutable characteristic.

[.blank cd]

How is it possible to post so much false information so consistently? It's as if you are literally Fox News. I'll be back to you when you can recognize on your own the straw man arguments you keep supporting your position with. Who was even talking about LUGs anyway? How was that even relevant to the conversation?

"What are your thoughts on the economic stability of the Middle East region?"

"MY TOAST TASTES LIKE TURTLES"

"Thank you, David"

[SPOOLIN]

I always say "WHO FUCKING CARES"

IF it were to change right now today, it wouldn't change one damn thing involving our own lives.

[Vteckidd]

The supreme court looks like it will agree with me. Strike down DOMA, let states decide individually what to recognize because marriage is not a civil right and sexual orientation is not the same as race or gender.

/discussion

[David88vert]

How is it possible to post so much false information so consistently? It's as if you are literally Fox News. I'll be back to you when you can recognize on your own the straw man arguments you keep supporting your position with. Who was even talking about LUGs anyway? How was that even relevant to the conversation?

"What are your thoughts on the economic stability of the Middle East region?"

"MY TOAST TASTES LIKE TURTLES"

"Thank you, David"


All of my information is factual and has supporting documentation that I have provided. You are unable to disprove these facts.

You asked for facts and I gave them to you. I asked for facts and you did not provide anything other than your own opinion which has no value except to yourself.

[David88vert]

I always say "WHO FUCKING CARES"

IF it were to change right now today, it wouldn't change one damn thing involving our own lives.

Gay people care and they do not want to follow the established legal process.

As long as they follow the rules, the outcome doesn't matter to me personally.

[.blank cd]

The supreme court looks like it will agree with me. Strike down DOMA, let states decide individually what to recognize because marriage is not a civil right and sexual orientation is not the same as race or gender.

/discussionSo when Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his majority opinion that "marriage is a civil right", what does that mean to you? Or did he not write that? Just trying to figure this out...

[.blank cd]

Gay people care and they do not want to follow the established legal process.Strauss v. Horton

Perry v. Swarzenegger

Perry v. Brown

Court of appeals


What part of the "established legal process" are we missing again? Seems like you don't understand law better than me. Lol

[David88vert]

So when Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his majority opinion that "marriage is a civil right", what does that mean to you? Or did he not write that? Just trying to figure this out...



Judges in 13 other cases stated that it was actually a fundamental right. You already know that though, right? Of course, judges write their opinion the way that they see fit.

Here are 12 of them:

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977)
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Oh, and ... Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

If anything, this is the best argument that you could make - combine the 14th amendment, the pursuit of happiness, and claim the spirit of the law is to allow gay people to marry.
The real solution is to have Congress legislate an Amendment.

Oh yeah, Judge Warren is gay - he has no possible bias, does he?

[David88vert]

Perry v. Swarzenegger

Perry v. Brown

Court of appeals


What part of the "established legal process" are we missing again? Seems like you don't understand law better than me. Lol

That is for Prop 8, and deals with CA specifically Wait and see what the final outcome is for Hollingsworth vs Perry (expected Jun 2013)

You realize that the SCOTUS is not there to write or make laws, right? Congress writes laws. If the federal government wished to state that marriage (and gay marriage) is a civil right, then they need to amend that to the Constitution. THEN the states would have to amend their state constitutions. The SCOTUS is not there to overrule the states constitution. Each state has their own court system for that.

[JMitch]

The fact that government has any say in marriage is flipping absurd.

[.blank cd]

That is for Prop 8, and deals with CA specifically Wait and see what the final outcome is for Hollingsworth vs Perry (expected Jun 2013)

You realize that the SCOTUS is not there to write or make laws, right? Congress writes laws. If the federal government wished to state that marriage (and gay marriage) is a civil right, then they need to amend that to the Constitution. THEN the states would have to amend their state constitutions. The SCOTUS is not there to overrule the states constitution. Each state has their own court system for that.

So you have a problem with the appeals process because you believe it circumvents states rights?

[Vteckidd]

So when Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his majority opinion that "marriage is a civil right", what does that mean to you? Or did he not write that? Just trying to figure this out...

SCOTUS opinion is not law.

[Vteckidd]

You can argue all you want but facts are facts, no document affirms marriage is a civil right.

[David88vert]

So you have a problem with the appeals process because you believe it circumvents states rights?

I prefer my legislation to come from the legislative branch, not from the judicial or executive branches. You know - the way the system was designed.

As I stated, get Congress to pass an amendment and all of this would be settled quickly and correctly. Just have them declare that gay marriage is a Constitutional right, the same as the right to bear arms.

[Sinfix_15]

Blog: Gays as a Minority (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/gays_as_a_minority.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook)

[.blank cd]

To take one example, academic researcher Mark Regerius at the University of Texas found that children raised by "gay" couple are not as well as adjusted as other children. Needless to say, his findings were immediately dismissed as biased and ill-founded, even though his methods were exonerated as completely legitimate.LOL. They really suck at this "trying to say gay marriage is bad" thing.

Marks study was dismissed as ill-founded because HE HIMSELF said it was ill-founded.

Ahh, Christian traditionalists. Is there anyone's rights you DONT want to abridge, other than your own? LOL.

[Sinfix_15]

LOL. They really suck at this "trying to say gay marriage is bad" thing.

Marks study was dismissed as ill-founded because HE HIMSELF said it was ill-founded.

Ahh, Christian traditionalists. Is there anyone's rights you DONT want to abridge, other than your own? LOL.

Lets try to use common sense here........

pretty sure if i was the kid in gym class who had two daddies, it would probably have effected my development. I love how at the same time we have all out anti-bullying campaigns in our media, that liberals try to pretend like having gay parents would be a non-factor in your upbringing.

With all due respect, i would just like to offer one question in opposition. Are you retarded?

[.blank cd]

Lets try to use common sense here........

pretty sure if i was the kid in gym class who had two daddies, it would probably have effected my development. I love how at the same time we have all out anti-bullying campaigns in our media, that liberals try to pretend like having gay parents would be a non-factor in your upbringing.

With all due respect, i would just like to offer one question in opposition. Are you retarded?

Lets keep with the common sense thing. Upbringing and bullying are two different things.

If you got your ass beat in gym class because kids were making fun of you because you had two dads, that is the result of SOMEONE ELSE'S bad upbringing. Not your own.

[Sinfix_15]

Lets keep with the common sense thing. Upbringing and bullying are two different things.

If you got your ass beat in gym class because kids were making fun of you because you had two dads, that is the result of SOMEONE ELSE'S bad upbringing. Not your own.

sigh.....

liberals will forever be too busy imaging the world the way they want it to be, to ever notice the world that is.

[.blank cd]

sigh.....

liberals will forever be too busy imaging the world the way they want it to be, to ever notice the world that is.

Facepalm.

So if you get your ass beat or made fun of in school, its your own fault? Is that what you're suggesting?

Do you even posses an ounce of sanity? Surely whatever keys you just punched on your keyboard was trolling, because it sure as hell wasn't a rational, coherent thought.

Upbringing and bullying are two completely different things. If you say otherwise, you're a moron and a troll. I don't care what side of the political isle you claim to be on.

[Sinfix_15]

Facepalm.

So if you get your ass beat or made fun of in school, its your own fault? Is that what you're suggesting?

Do you even posses an ounce of sanity? Surely whatever keys you just punched on your keyboard was trolling, because it sure as hell wasn't a rational, coherent thought.

Upbringing and bullying are two completely different things. If you say otherwise, you're a moron and a troll. I don't care what side of the political isle you claim to be on.

In your imaginary world of "how things should be".... kids dont get bullied, spending twice what you make doesnt put you in debt, you deserve to get paid for not working, a man having sex with another man is not a choice, guns kill people, and the government knows what's best for you.

I get it......

[.blank cd]

I get it......No. You really don't. Lol. You are about as far from getting it as one could be. If it weren't for your questioning the physical existence of a deity, I would assume your computer desk is saturated in your own drool.

[Sinfix_15]

No. You really don't. Lol. You are about as far from getting it as one could be. If it weren't for your questioning the physical existence of a deity, I would assume your computer desk is saturated in your own drool.

Everything we want to do doesnt have to be normal. I agree with you on the legality of gay rights, but i'm not down with this campaign to make homosexuality as normal as blue jeans.

[.blank cd]

It's not a campaign to make homosexuality normal. It already is "normal." The fact that you or anyone else finds it any degree of revolting to have a romantic disposition to someone of the same sex is completely irrelevant to its normalcy.

[Sinfix_15]

It's not a campaign to make homosexuality normal. It already is "normal." The fact that you or anyone else finds it any degree of revolting to have a romantic disposition to someone of the same sex is completely irrelevant to its normalcy.

Actually it is quite relevant, seeing as how this is an issue that gets voted on.




with that said..... this should be a clear indicator that it's time for the government to turn loose of marriage completely. It is not their business.

[.blank cd]

with that said..... this should be a clear indicator that it's time for the government to turn loose of marriage completely. It is not their business.
And that's fine. But either you have government recognized marriages that apply to everyone that wants to get married, that doesn't discriminate based on orientation, or don't have it at all.

[Sinfix_15]

And that's fine. But either you have government recognized marriages that apply to everyone that wants to get married, that doesn't discriminate based on orientation, or don't have it at all.

In terms of government, i agree..... recognize them all or recognize none..... my vote is to recognize none.

[Vteckidd]

im not subscribing to the "end of society" or "kids will be under more stress" if their parents are gay. I dont think that is true at all and there is no evidence to support it. What about kids who have parents who are traditional and get divorced? arrested? I mean there are tons of factors.

Being gay is the most accepted it has EVER been. 15 years ago in High School , NOBODY was gay, or they didnt say they were. Now, not the same thing. Kids are openly gay in HS.

I dont want to debate the sociological implications because that is not the issue. The issue is what constitutes a "RIGHT" and who has the right to decide who gets a marriage license?

To me the answer is clear based upon years of precedent:
Marriage is not a RIGHT
Local municipalities decide what marriage is based upon a voting populations decision.

The Gay movement should be REALLY happy, because when this gets kicked back to a STATES RIGHTS issue, the SCOTUS will basically be saying that the FEDs have NO PRECEDENT to decide anything on marriage, which will leave the door wide open to striking down any tax benefits for any married couple. But i suspect they arent seeing the forest through the trees.

[E36slide]

im not subscribing to the "end of society" or "kids will be under more stress" if their parents are gay. I dont think that is true at all and there is no evidence to support it. What about kids who have parents who are traditional and get divorced? arrested? I mean there are tons of factors.

Being gay is the most accepted it has EVER been. 15 years ago in High School , NOBODY was gay, or they didnt say they were. Now, not the same thing. Kids are openly gay in HS.

I dont want to debate the sociological implications because that is not the issue. The issue is what constitutes a "RIGHT" and who has the right to decide who gets a marriage license?

To me the answer is clear based upon years of precedent:
Marriage is not a RIGHT
Local municipalities decide what marriage is based upon a voting populations decision.

The Gay movement should be REALLY happy, because when this gets kicked back to a STATES RIGHTS issue, the SCOTUS will basically be saying that the FEDs have NO PRECEDENT to decide anything on marriage, which will leave the door wide open to striking down any tax benefits for any married couple. But i suspect they arent seeing the forest through the trees.

I LOVE COCK



Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

[Vteckidd]

Oh look a gay joke. How original .

I've had more pussy than the you can fathom. I'm sure you're much more comfortable in jail though.

[Vteckidd]

Im closing this due to the fact taht E36BUTTFUCK cant contain himself from acting like a 3 year old