How big of an issue is same sex marriage to you?

Slippery slope logical fallacy. You can't deny gays their rights because of where it might lead down the road. Let it play out in the courts. I think that that there is plenty of denying gays the right to marry would not hold up to strict scrutiny but close relative marriage restrictions would. They are not the same thing. In addition , few if any are pushing that issue, except those for who want to thwart gay marriage and only then as a means to derail the conversation and the progress that is being made.

 

Its the same issue. Discrimination in marriage

 

What about my most recent question to you? Are you willing to declare you support for gay marriage now, for the children?

 

Q: What do you call someone who thinks homosexuality is a "choice"?

A: A BISEXUAL

 

No. I couldn't bring myself to tell the children whose parent aren't gay but also excluded from marriage, that I cant support them because their parents aren't gay.

 

Well Dixon. That's it. I thought that you might have been ready to do the right thing. I drew you a road made to show you how supporting gay marriage was consistent with everything that you claim to believe in, especially regarding children while not having to abandon you mission to extend marriage to others as well. And what did you do? You blew it. You dropped the ball. You have exposed yourself to be the bigot that you really are, and a bigot who is too cowardice to admit.

As far this goes: "I couldn't bring myself to tell the children whose parent aren't gay but also excluded from marriage, that I cant support them because their parents aren't gay." It's a bunch of made up horse(*)(*)(*)(*). Just an excuse to not support gay marriage. These children who you speak of already have legal ties to their caretakers. They are family. My work is done here. You might as well go and crawl back under that rock

 

The only valid discussion from my perspective is basing the discussion upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person considering that the political ideology of the United States is based upon the necessity of government to protect our Inalienable Rights as established by the Declaration of Independence. It is upon this foundation that I oppose ALL marriage laws because no matter what they are they are going to result in the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Only "contract" law based upon the voluntary consent of adults is non-discriminatory and it applies to both written and verbal contracts between persons.

Contract law is exclusively about protecting the Rights of those that voluntarily enter into the contract and that is what our government should be doing based upon the political ideology that the primary purpose of government in the United States, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is to protect our Inalienable Rights and our Freedom to Exercise those Rights.

 

I thought that our government and our laws were based on the Constitution. I don't recall any court case where the Declaration of Independence was referenced. Do you?

 

But they dont have all the advantages of marriage that YOU claim puts the children at a disadvantage. I am the one who only sees a disadvantage to the parents. You have no concern for children, you are only concerned about gays. No interest in equality but instead advocating inequality to benefit the gays.

 

Whatever you say boss. You da man

 

No, I can just formulate a rational argument.

 

I am not gay. I don't have any gay friends currently that I keep in touch with. Had some in college, but like almost all of the people, gay or straight, that I knew then, I haven't kept in touch.

As far as direct personal relevance to my life, legalizing same-sex marriage has a null effect, just as it does to everyone who isn't gay since those people aren't going to get a same-sex marriage in the first place.

However, it's indirectly relevant to me because it means that, if I were to not support same-sex marriage, I would be supporting the completely asinine subjective use of the law to promote someone's elitist or religious biases. I can't and will not accept that. Same-sex marriage is not a requirement. It's not something I have to deal with if I don't choose to have one. If legalizing same-sex marriage(hypothetically) meant there would be roving gangs of armed same-sex couples shooting up towns, maybe things would be different. If God was real and was going to smite us, maybe that would be a negative. But since neither of those two outrageous examples are real(just like the rest of the "sky is falling" predictions about same-sex marriage have been and still are), there's really no reason to oppose it if you're not coming from a perspective built on subjective traditions, religious views, prejudices, and a whole lot of hubris.

I consider this issue to be one of the ones that brings out the most disgusting behavior in people and I can't accept that because it's a disgust that is completely voluntary, completely arbitrary, and completely pointless.

 

The preference for mothers and fathers to raise their children together is neither religious or elitist. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol use, teen pregnancy, High School dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult.

 

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land but the Declaration of Independence has often been mentioned in Supreme Court decisions as have the Federalist Papers as well as British common law. In deciding the "intent" of the US Constitution the Supreme Court has to rely on external sources to understand it's meaning when that meaning isn't clear.

For example in the Roe v Wade decision not only were the laws of the United States reviewed, but also British laws as well as the recorded laws throughout the history of mankind in determining the definition of "person" that is used throughout the US Constitution. In the case of The United States v Kim Wong Ark the establishment of natural born citizenship was determined to a large degree on the definition of "subject" under the monarchy of England. A "natural born subject" of the King equated to the "natural born citizen" under the Constitution in that decision.

The Declaration of Independence, because it was an official document unanimously approved by the Congress of the Colonies, has a huge meaning in interpretations of the US Constitution far more than, for example, the Federalist Papers that only reflected one side of a political argument prior to adoption of the US Constitution. The Declaration of Independence establishes the political ideology of the US Constitution and the United States and it's importance can never be dismissed.

 

Myopic logic because children raised with one genetic parent and one adoptive/foster parent fair equally regardless of whether the adoptive/foster parent is a same-sex parent or an opposite-sex parent.

Sorry but apples and oranges do not establish a comparison. The simple fact is that two parents are better than one parent regardless of any gender considerations. Two loving parents are always better than a single parent household regardless of gender. It can even be noted that in millions of cases adoptive parents are superior to the biological parents and in millions of cases where severe friction exists between the two biological parents the child or children are generally better off because of divorce than they would be if the parents remained together.

Perhaps the worst case is when the two biological parents that can't stand each other stay together for the "sake of the child" because such relationships don't benefit the child and instead can cause severe harm to them.

Courts across the land have already tossed this BS argument out.

 

Ignorant fool logic leads you to perceive some contradiction between your statement and mine. Most children born to single mothers never have anyone adopt them.

 

Probably correct although no supporting citations are provided. At the same time most do at some point end up living in dual parent households regardless of whether the couple is married or not. Remember that the benefits of a two parent household are not dependent upon the legal institution of marriage. A "common law" marriage, although not legally recognized by many states, provides the same benefits to the child.

 

All of which have absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with promoting two parent households. Same-sex marriage has no bearing on whether a household is going to be single parent. In fact, same-sex marriage will help bring about MORE two parent households.

Your continued charade of hiding behind the children is empty and dishonest and you darn well know it. Someone with even 10% of their brain actually working can see it as a pathetic smoke screen for your own personal biases against gay people. This is what I've been trying to tell you constantly since I first started conversing with you. NOBODY BELIEVES YOUR CRAP EXCEPT THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MAINTAIN THE SAME BIASED LAWS THAT YOU DO FOR THE SAME BIASED REASONS! You don't have facts on your side, you don't have real life examples on your side. You've got nothing that isn't a derivative of "ewww no". I'm not sure where you were schooled or if you've had any type of training in logic or science, but that's plain old fashioned bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and like I said, anyone with even a partially functional brain easily recognizes it for what it is. Subjective discomfort.

THAT is why you're losing the argument, and will always lose this argument. You don't have the taboos to hide behind anymore, taboos that went a long way towards preventing real-life experiences in this. That's going away, and because of that we're seeing that this great divide you think that exists between traditional opposite-sex parents and same-sex parents is and has always been a smokescreen. You're like one of those people that was trying to sell comet pills during the early 1900s because people were afraid that passing through the debris tail of Halley's comet would cause them to get sick. Your position absolutely relies on ignorance and bias. Since that's been declining in recent decades, and ever more rapidly as every day goes by, your position has been exposed as the prejudicial bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that it is and has always been.

 

Correct, same sex couples produce no children.

???? No, marriage creates no parental obligations on anyone other than a husband married to a woman who gives birth. You are thinking of adoption.

 

So what? it means that gay life style would not prosper in communist and none Western Christian countries so it is in your and all homosexuals to pray that our country do not become an atheist or Islamic country.

 

It quite a stretch of the imagination to think that our country could become communist or Islamic. More secular, yes. But it's not the secularists that worry me. As far as the lifestyle thing goes, I was trying to tell you something about myself. Think about what it is that you assumed about me.

 

Not dependant but I believe without the legal, social, religious tradition of marriage, providing and caring for children would primarily be the domain of women, with at most a monthly check from a father if he is known. We are already evolving in that direction. Government declaring that marriage is henceforth unrelated to procreation and only about sex, doesnt help matters.

 

That is not what government (i.e. the courts) is declaring. The Courts are instead declaring that "marriage" is about "money" because of the merged financial assets, liabilities, and taxes that are "mutual shared" based upon the partnership. It has absolutely nothing to do with "sex" at all. Marriage is a legal partnership and the fact that it isn't being addressed as a matter of contract law that protects the members of a partnership is the fundamental problem with all marriage laws.

Why should a couple that forms a personal partnership, responsibly has and raises children, but doesn't obtain a special "license" by government be treated differently than a couple that obtains that "license" from government? Everything is identical except for a piece of paper issued by the government and that's BS. Both couples are engaged in the identical contract but one is a verbal contract while the other is a written contract but there is no difference between the two under contract law. Verbal contracts are just as binding as written contracts.

 

It means next to nothing to me but I am sorta into that freedom thang we keep hearing so much about.

 

Thank YOU! That needed to be said. What doesn't kill him makes him crazier. Good to see someone on here that get as annoyed at him as I do.