Gay Marriage debate.

[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...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...dment_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.

[.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/missi...8-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


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

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. Lol

Seriously... 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

"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
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/Marriag..._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 countries

Thats 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

"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/Marriag..._United_States

Why 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"