Support for same sex marriage at an all time high

Your obsession with commenting about me doesn't hide the fact you have nothing relevant to the topic of discussion to contribute.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............

 

You quoted and highlighted my question

and responded to that question-

Which is as much of a justification for excluding the mother and grandmother from marriage as my response(*)

would justify marriages limitation to heterosexual couples. Like I said

You seem fond of responding to my questions, yet never supply an answer.(*)

 

Yeah, apparently we remove all vestiges of science and common sense from our minds when writing law?

The reason why societies and governments encourage marriage between sexually active couples, is because they are trying to coax the couple into creating a stable marriage before they create a baby. We just assume men and women make babies, because we want to promote marriage. We don't want to throw water on the fire by forcing men and women to undergo invasive fertility tests. The number of couples who are barren is very small, so it's worth promoting marriages, and not turning it into a government run invasion of privacy into the most intimate parts of our selves and our lives.

Human societies all over the world understand the importance of marriage. In the US, our government is the people, and the people are the government. It was the people, who once they formed their representative government, demanded that their government reflect their values, morals, ethics and desires. It was we the people who demanded our governments endorse, promote and even subsidize marriage.

We know the humans are flawed, and many have difficulties maintaining personal relationships. Do a Google search for government "marriage counseling" and premarital and parent, there are tens of thousands of hits.

It's all because of children. Children are our future, the best place to raise them is in a marriage with the parents who gave birth to them. We have government sponsored child and parenting programs because of the vital importance children are to our future.

I answered them already, to either you or someone else. We already have laws which are decided upon in a seemingly arbitrary manner, based upon nothing but our own morals and ethics. The ages to legally obtain a drivers license, to buy tobacco, drink beer, or legally marry, vary between states. It's up to the states to define laws like marriage, driving, drinking, etc...

Whatever definition of marriage the proponents for same-sex marriage come up with, it will be made in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. you'll discriminate by age, you'll discriminate by the number of people who can be married together. You'll discriminate by banning marriages between certain close family members.

 

Projecting?

I've seen the bobble-heads repeat the mantra of "who is it gonna hurt" as a way to justify adding more and more people onto government programs or in this case, fundamentally changing the definition of marriage. Your post seemed to simply paraphrase the bobble-headed mantra, hence my response.

You mean like Dred Scott? We had states making slavery illegal, and when it went to the SCOTUS, they created slavery as law. Slavery was finally addressed by the political process by our representative government, not in the court, as some would have gay marriage ruled on.

They did not change marriage to become two men as married. but the describe marriage as “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” This is about procreation from the marriage of a man and a woman, the children who are our future citizens.

Wrong.

Food Stamps is completely discriminatory. Where in the constitution does it give government the authority to discriminate against people based upon their income level?

We have said that only a marriage of one man one woman, not three, or four. That is also discriminatory to those who want multiple spouses to feel free.

Marriage as defined in my state:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

Marriage is the institution that is the foundation of the family and of society. Its stability is basic to morality and civilization, and of vital interest to society and the state. The consequences of the marriage contract are more significant to society than those of other contracts, and the public interest must be taken into account always. The seriousness of marriage makes adequate premarital counseling and education for family living highly desirable and courses thereon are urged upon all persons contemplating marriage. The impairment or dissolution of the marriage relation generally results in injury to the public wholly apart from the effect upon the parties immediately concerned. Under the laws of this state, marriage is a legal relationship between 2 equal persons, a husband and wife, who owe to each other mutual responsibility and support. Each spouse has an equal obligation in accordance with his or her ability to contribute money or services or both which are necessary for the adequate support and maintenance of his or her minor children and of the other spouse. No spouse may be presumed primarily liable for support expenses under this subsection.

Sounds like you are trying to use the fourteenth amendment as some sort of grab bag for egalitarianism. The purpose of the 14th was to declare once and for all, we as a people said blacks in the US are just as much an American citizen, as anyone else, and as such, they are equal in every way. The equal protection clause does not apply to gay marriage.

So when the Constitution does not speak to marriage law, the supreme court should stay out of it, they are not the legislative branch. Slavery was abolished by congress, when the SCOTUS stuck their nose into slavery they created an divisive environment which led to a civil war between the states.

 

Menopause does not happen for all women at the same age.

70-Year-Old Woman Gives Birth

I don't remember seeing a relevant or interesting question concerning lesbians.

Marriage is about more then just the husband and wife, and their children. Marriage brings with it the larger family unit of grand children, and great grandchildren. another desire by government is to strengthen the family unit, because a strong family takes care of each other during hard times, taking the pressure off government to provide social welfare services.

As to adoptions, all gay marriage, that involves children is about, is adoptions, by one spouse or the other. Gay marriage is basically two adults agreeing to raise each others children. there is no blood relationship between gay spouses and any children they obtain thru a third party. This is markedly different then the vast majority of traditional marriages.

I'm not against gays raising children, once they engage in raising children, they are performing a vital function that is beneficial to the nation, and a civil and just society should support them. The same goes for single parents who adopt children.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...marriage-all-time-high-13.html#post1062422878

We are not an egalitarian form of government, not everyone is always equal in every way.

Convicted felons can't posses a gun, 17 year olds can't vote, men cannot go naked in public, or shower in the women's gymnasium's showers, people over a certain income can't get housing assistance, and polygamy is illegal. The equal protection clause does not apply to gay marriage.

We are allowed to create government programs and laws and define them to fulfill a specific function or purpose

 

To the Christians claiming that this is all about your taking offense to the redefinition of marriage: If you guys want to keep absolute control over marriage, then you Christians need to give Christmas back to the Pagans. I'm sure they weren't too happy with what you did to their traditions.

 

I don't know if support for gay marriage is up or not. I would say the "don't really give a crap" is at an all time high. Who cares?

 

So what? Gay marriage is not marriage, marriage is between a man and a woman. Any thing else is a social abomination.

 

What gives you the right to have an iron-fist grip on marriage and who can marry? Seriously.

 

In most cases it probably is OK, but gay marriage, sorry, that is codifying perversity. A bridge too far.

 

Conscience. It's common knowledge.

 

marriage is also between a man and a man. and also a woman and woman. so, obviously gay marriage is marraige.

we've been over this. your perceived morality or what you find perverse is subjective. nobody cares what you think. thankfully, we live in america, where nobody is subject to your perceived version of morality, except you.

 

The definition of marriage is whatever we say it is. As for being a "social abomination", that is a subjective opinion that is rapidly declining in popularity. A few decades from now only a very small minority of the population will think that.

 

Apparently not.

 

Religious marraige is not going to happen in a Church that follows the traditions and rules of Christianity. But there should be no problem with a civil marraige give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers and all that.

 

Probably the same thing that leads you to believe that you should have the iron fist grip on marriage and who can marry.

 

How about this Dixie: while it seems absurd to permit parents to marry their children, if we do one day allow same-sex parent/child marriages, I'll demand just as strongly that opposite-sex marriages be allowed, as fervently as I advocate that we remove bans on same-sex marriages, currently.

Okie doke? Or does the concept of equality of rights, without regard for sexual orientation, go over your head?

 

The majority agreeing with him?

 

???? Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples isnt arbitrary because only heterosexual couples procreate. Limiting marriage to heterosexual and homosexual couples would be arbitrary because sex in a relationship has no rational relation to the governments stated interest in fostering the formation of stable homes.

 

Whose conscience specifically?

If your conscience is so common, how are these laws getting passed?