Logic?? You have to kidding. Saying anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex was never the issue so why post it. The issue is the right of a person to marry another person. Yoou guys certainly use very weak arguments.
sorry, but the supreme court said marriage is a civil right. procreation has nothing to do with who can marry. same argument was tried and found unconstitutional against interracial marriage.
Did I say a brother and sister could not have children? No, I gave the reasons why they shouldn't. Of course, you would dodge that part. And then you post a picture from a Gay Pride Parade as a red herring. Pathetic. You never argued the points that I was making.
It is illegal in 40 states and the 10 states that do allow gays to marry, they still do not get federal rights with marriage.
Sure, what's what it was when it was created. Now its 2013 and things change. Keep up or get left behind. Except the privilege of being viewed as a married couple in the eyes of the law.
Any man can marry any woman, and vice versa, in all 50 states, etc., with full privileges. Regardless of sexual persuasion.
Nope , asking a question . Where is the attack you claim ? - - - Updated - - - You don't find it odd that only 2 % of those surveyed had sexual contact with a male in last YEAR ?
I believe you meant to say "keep up or get buggered from behind" .... Any two folks of opposite sex can get married (within reasonable restrictions) regardless of sexual persuasion and fetish. Same rules for all.
The title of the OP is Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous How did that turn into an anti gay free for all?? There are some truly strange people in this world.
lol That would be the worst relay race ever. Now your just being deliberately obtuse. We know that 2 consenting adults of opposite genders are freely available to get married. Its the 2 consenting adults of the same gender who cannot get married that we are speaking of.
any man can marry any woman of the same race, and vice versa, in all 50 states, etc., with full priveleges. Regardless of race. that didn't work either.
any two folks of the same race can get married, regardless of race. same rules for all. that didn't work either.
...which is a new law, hence the push back. As has been mentioned, there is no equality issue. Every man and every woman have exactly the same right today. As has also been mentioned, America allows discrimination based on sex. As I said, it's unbreakable logic. You are left to emote or throw whatever childish tantrum suits your need.
Which has been explained, and is certainly not obtuse. "Obtuse" would be the claim that SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a "civil right" that applies to changing the definition of marriage, when SCOTUS' rulings have only applied, to date, to saying that we cannot discriminate in interracial man-woman marriages. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, except when folks claim that gays do not have the same rights. By every possible definition, they do. What gays want is a change in the current privileges that would expand the definition of marriage beyond its natural parameters. As others have noted, I would rather everyone be granted Civil Union privileges, man-woman, man-man, etc. But that a "marriage" be kept for a church ceremony btw opposite sexes. Even that, with all privileges the same, would not be acceptable to most gays though. They want to be considered the same as everyone else, and they clearly are not. Not chastising them, but we are not all the same. Live with it.
what was said in 1950: I don't really have a dog in this hunt, except when folks claim that blacks do not have the same rights. By every possible definition, they do. What blacks want is a change in the current privileges that would expand the definition of marriage beyond its natural parameters.
Actually, I live in a country where gay marriage has been legal for 8 years and life still goes on. Anyway, Every possible definition in one paragraph, and then in the last you basically lay out the only real difference in the last. I'm sorry but we shall never agree on this. I believe that Gay people should have the full right to get married in any church that will perform the ceremony (I don't believe that churches should be forced to perform ceremonies, especially as there are churches that will without issue) and be given the same recognition in the eyes of the law as an opposite sex spouse. They should get the same hospital bedside rights, same taxable benefits, same everything. Then your 'Every possible Definition' will hold merit.
Your post needs one giant do-over, as whatever point you wanted to make crashed and burned. Try again.
Nope, the same nonsense arguments against inter-racial marriage are being used for gay marriage. Its sad that people like you cannot see this.
You might want to go back and read again. My post embraces everything that you want, except the "title" of marriage. You will not find a post by me anywhere that says that Civil Unions need to be denied all that you mention. The only thing that I have ever questioned were adoption rights, as I believe that parents for any child should be 1 man, 1 woman, when government is making the decision. Many in the gay community want to see churches compelled to perform gay "marriages". That is not gonna happen. I do not like playing this card. I do have a brother who is gay. Who is married to his partner. And whose employment is within the gay-rights legal profession. In a huge way. I know the issues inside out. - - - Updated - - - No. They are not. Cite me examples. Prove me wrong.
Why do you bother posting? It is not a new law - fact. Society has agreed that gays are being discriminated when it comes to marriage - fact. Equality is the issue - fact. There is discrimination but "America" doesn't "allow" it.