Obama's Gay Marriage Evolution is Offensive to God and America

your entire premise is flawed. you need to first prove the existence of your god, before we can even begin to debate whether it is offended by gay marriage.

 

marriage has not been limited to a man and woman for thousands of years. It's only been so limited in the US since the 1970's. procreation is completely irrelevant.

 

I believe Virginia, in 2005 was the last state to eliminate its criminal laws against vaginal sex outside of marriage.

 

a relationship between two people of the same sex, has the same requirements for govn't involvment as opposite sex couples.

 

children have nothing to do with marriage licenses.

 

lol, forgetting the fact that the US is only 236 years old, marriage has only been limitted to a man and a woman since the 1970's.

 

there are already "millions of non romantic, financial only couples" who are married. allowing same sex couples to marry has no effect on this.

the reason is the same for two homosexuals, as it is for two heterosexuals.

 

two sterile, geriatric or paralyzed opposite sex couples can marry. they are IDENTICALLY situated to same sex couples. procreation is an impossibility. that's why procreation is and always has been irrelevant to who can marry.

 

arguments defeated in federal court

 

relevance????

 

Nade up nonsense you are fond of repeating over and over again. Marriage in America has always been limited to a man and a woman from the very beginning. Heres California statute from 1872

Lets see from you even one example of a state law that allows marriage between two people of the same sex before this century OR even one example of a legal marriage in the US between two people of the same sex. Back up the BS you spew here JUST ONCE. Your personal proclamations of fact couldnt be more meaningless.

 

None that you could comprehend.

 

Not yet. Thats why in California, where lower courts made such decisions, marriage is still, limited by law to only a man and a woman.

 

Noooo, one couple is of the same sex, the other is not. Encouraging opposite sex couples to marry reduces the number of single mothers, on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging same sex couples to mary has no such effect. Would make as much sense as encouraging same sex couples to use birth control pills, IUDs and diaphrams if they want to prevent pregnancy. We dont know which individual couples will procreate but we do know that all who do will be exclusively opposite sex couples.

 

nope. no limitation existed prior to the 1970's. the quote you keep presenting from 1872 has no such limitation.

by having no prohibitions against two people of the same sex of course. not until the 1970's. a legal marriage existing is irrelevant to the fact that it was not legally prohibitted until the 1970's. and I couldn't care less what you find "meaningless". I will continue to destroy your arguments regardless.

 

No, we adopted the limitations from European laws, thousands of years old.
Have you yet found even one example of marriage laws, prior to this century, that did not limit marriage to a man and a woman? Even one example of a legal, same sex marriage?

 

lol, dodge noted. we both know you had nothing of relevance there.

 

One half of a married couple stays home at home currently for many reasons. It's easier for the couple to maintain a complex household, it allows the employed half to work longer hours or make a greater work commitment, it might become necessary due to job loss, it's more practical for assisting elderly parents or dealing with a couples own illnesses or infirmities, it might allow one spouse to accept a job opportunity in a location where the other can't work -- there are many reasons.

Head of household filing status can only be claimed by single filers, it's not even available for married couples. It's not a perk of marriage (or even of having dependents). Filing that you have dependents is not a perk of being married, it's a way of recognizing a relative is living with you and dependent on your income (that might be children, parents, siblings, etc). It's simply a way of transferring the deduction they would have on their own income tax (if they had filed) to you, since you are saying your income is supporting them. It's not a way of 'rewarding' someone for a choice, it's an attempt to not unduly penalize them for that choice.

Why would same sex marriage trigger "millions of non romantic, financial only couples lining up to get married" when mixed sex couples have that same option right now and don't seem to be triggering them? And why would we care if it did? The laws of marriage don't make it easier or cheaper for two individuals to live two individual lives, they only try to make our laws not treat people worse if they choose to live one life. And even then, most married couples pay more in income tax than they would if they filed separately. Accountants have called that the 'marriage penalty' for decades. The accommodation to file as a married couple just lets you not separate your finances, it doesn't make you pay less on them.
​

Why is that a significant question? It is good for society, that people have a partner to support them in bad times, sickness, and poverty. But we don't ask our laws to not cause unnecessary hardship to some American's for ulterior motives. We do it because the will of the American people is that our laws provide equal protection to all of us. We insist on that equality, unless there is a necessity to do otherwise.

.​

 

What part of "MAN... AND... WOMAN", didnt you understand? NOT man OR woman. Show us even ONE example in recorded history of two guys "consummating marriage" by boning each other in the butt. Requires a penis and vagina. Its biology.

 

interesting fact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

"The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire"



.

 

Your ignorance of the US judicial process is not my fault. Your ignorance of the judicial process. Defeats or victories only occur at the end of that process. Thats why you still couldnt marry a boyfriend in California.

 

LMAO not bad, but what is even funnier is how all the conservative/republicans claim that they are so moral, family values, and know God personally and then the next thing you know one is getting caught with his pants down or his hand in the cookie jar.

Funny that the folks who carry the most hatred in this country are conservatives/republican, but in the next breath also claim to be closes to God.

What a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hypocrites.

 

Your ommission of fact is more relevant here