I support gay marriage

It's funny because you haven't adressed the orginal point at all.

 

I dont think we have 29 states where people dont have all their teeth.

 

The fact that you dont support marriage for any consenting adults who desires it, and instead only seek to expand marriage to include "gay marriage", reveals your true intent.

 

What is his "true intent", in your opinion?

 

To CONTINUE to "to dictate who can and can't marry", as long as it doesnt exclude "gay marriage"

 

The more likely scenario is they're not concerned with who else can or can't marry as it doesn't effect them directly. It requires a different evaluation of scenarios and reasons to understand why other restrictions may be in place which one is not required to know or understand to evaluate same-sex marriage on its merits... this is not the same as opposing or wishing to dictate any of those further restrictions, which will exist or fall by their own merits in serving important state interestes. The only ones dictating are those specifically blocking the lift of restrictions without cause and consistant application of the law.

 

Yeah, they have no regard for equal protection of the law. They are only concerned that homosexuals not be discriminated against. Special rules for homosexuals, because they are so special.

 

Maybe we have this really really backwards. Traditional Marriage up until the last 100 years or so was an arranged marriage. Mom and Dad decided, no dating involved. If the gay wedding is too modern, how about you marry at 14 to a opposite gender person you never met because both parents agreed it was a good idea?

 

Arguing for the restrictions is beyond th scope of the case. A gay couple can't argue for any other restriction the be lifted because they would not have standing in court. Accordingly it's not necessary for them to be able to argue for every other case in court. Only one case us being considered right now, which is a normal practice for court proceedings. If other cases can demonstrate that there is no good reason for them to be blocked either, they will stand or fall on their own merit. None of this means gays, or anyone else, supports or opposes further restrictions which have their own issues for the courts to weigh and consider and balance against the right of marriage. This has nothin to do with same-sex couples.

 

Beyond the scope of their constitution. It is the animus towards homosexuals that creates this constitutional right to marriage. There is no animus directed towards single mothers and grandmothers raising children together so no constitutional right to marriage for them. The thosands of years old institution of marriage hasnt been limited to heterosexual couples in order to exclude single mothers and grandmothers from marrying, but has instead, in their mind, been so limited in order to exclude homosexuals.

 

The tradition of marriage, as it existed for thousands of years as an age old institution: A means of heterosexual men to declare ownership of their women, second class citizens. A means of making sure the man only needed to worry about taking care of HIS kids, not the illegitimate kids he fathered with his house wenches and local prostitutes. A means of enforcing racial, religious, and class systems. Such a system seems largely designed to serve the needs and wants of Men. Would an appeal to the tradition of marriage, in its FULL context (not just the parts you like) really make sense?

Let's not pretend that marriage is what it is and has never been changed. The question that is relevant today for the court is for what function it serves now. The modern context of legal, social and technological changes are relevant for consideration.

 

People being against gay marriage seems like a pointless waste of time and energy. Letting people marry who they love isn't hurting anyone.

 

Amen!! Here is a great video making that point!!

 

Well SpaceCricket despite your sudden wish to legalize gay marriage it has not quite happened yet, so I imagine you will still hear about it at least in the media and in certain places on the Internet, especially here as well. And even if they do legalize it I am sure there will still be debate surrounding the issue, just like there is still debate surrounding abortion even though it's legal.

But in the mean time you can always avoid the Gay & Lesbian Rights sub-forum here and focus your attention on the more important issues in the Economics & Trade sub-forum. Chances are you'll be a lot less likely to hear about this issue there.

 

It's also a waste of time and energy because it's inevitable.

 

You are making my point for me. The limitation to men and women had NOTHING to do with excluding homosexuals.

None of the things you mentioned above are a reflection of marriage, but instead a reflection of our male dominant society. Even matriarchial societies limited marriage to men and women because only men and women procreate.

 

More BLAH.

 

You can't enforce the curren based on an irrelivant history.
It's already been pretty well established, that in today's world and society, and has been enforced by the courts, procreation is not the sole and only sufficient purpose for marriage. If marriage was to be restricted to procreative purposes, then maybe adultery laws and divorce shoul not have been lifted, and maybe the courts should stop recognizing it as a fundimental right independent of procreative purposes.

And while you're at it, stop blocking marriage for same sex couples that wish to procreate and raise children, as they fulfill the same purpose. That includes mother and grandma marriages, unless the court and society thinks thy have a sufficiently strong reason to block it... That way all the mothers and grandmothers that you keep fighting on behalf of can marry... You know, that non-existent group of people that want to marry that you keep making an issue of.

 

The fact that only men and women procreate remains as relevant today as it was in the past. .

 

It might be relevant to something, but it's not relevant as the only sufficient purpose for marriage. Other purposes have been decided sufficient to enforce the protection of the right to marry independent of procreation.

It's also not like gays don't have and raise kids either.

 

The intent of marriage is to encourage heterosexuaol couples to raise their children together in the home. Not somebody elses children.

 

How does it make any point? We're talking about "traditional marriage" as if there's an ACTUAL tradition behind what we're doing. POlygamy is traditional in some places. Arranged marriages are traditional in lots of places. Polyandry (one woman, lots of men) is the tradition of some isolated tribes.

Pick your "tradition" or leave people alone to pick a tradition.

 

What escapes you, is that in all the above, it is always and exclusively between a man and a woman. Be they one marriage or many, marriages have been between a man and a woman. NOT because they are not homosexuals, but instead because only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation.

My brother and I are partners in business and jointly own property together. I want to marry my brother, but we are not gay. "Gay marriage' is only for gay couples. The courts created this constitutional right to gay marriage in some states using the argument that marriage is limited to heterosexual couples in order to exclude homosexual couples. Motivated by animus towards homosexuals. There is no animus directed towards brothers so no constitutional right to "gay marriage"

 

I didn't know you had such affection for your brother? Did you guys tie the knott unofficially?

 

dixon you can't marry your sister either, even though you are heterosexual. You're talking apples and oranges here.

But if you seriously wish to marry your brother, as consenting adults you both should have that right, no matter how strange or icky the rest of the world may find it. Perhaps you should be fighting for your own rights to marry who you love rather than fighting against other people's rights to marry who they love.