Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

I'm proud of you Sam. You seem to be trying to learn, unlike a certain troll that we all know and loath. Perhaps this will help:

This is an excerpt. Read the whole thing.

 

I never said that gay marriage would affect straight couples or cause them to get divorced. I'm simply saying that it would weaken the definition of marriage by changing marriage from simply, "the union of one man and one woman" to the "union of 2 adults regardless of gender".

And yes, gay marriage is already legalized in my state.

 

Maybe there is hope for Sam. Not so sure about certain others.

 

It would change the definition of marriage yes. But how does that translate into weaken? Is change always for the worst? I say that it will strengthen by making it more inclusive, fare and equal.

And Dixon, I know you're there, before you chime in by saying that it would only be fare if you "mother and grandmother down the street" were included, don't even bother. I don't even take you seriously anymore if I ever did. No one does. Can you get that? Go away.

Sam: Back to you. Loose that guy. You are salvageable. He is not.

 

Changing the definition from 'the union of one man of the same color to one woman of the same color" didn't weaken the definition of marriage.

You keep making the claim that the 'definition of marriage' will be weakened- and I am at a loss at how- other than the propaganda slippery slope of the far right that is supposed to be.

When white men were allowed to legally marry black women this was only a positive thing. So it is with allowing two people of the same gender to marry.

 

Because race is irrelevant to the governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children. Irrelevant to the institution of marriage and only relevant to racism in America.

 

"Equal" would involve eliminating the different treatment for the married and unmarried. Cries for equality are just a little bit disingenuous when you are talking about an institution such as marriage that by design treats the unmarried UNequal to the married.

 

If we can use Sweden as a guide, with one half of one% of all new marriages are gay marriages, gay marriage would strengthen marriage by 1/2 of 1%

 

So what? I agree, they are consenting adults, if they want to be in multi party marriages, more power to them. The only nitpick I have is your use of the word "Polygamy" which means one husband many wives. Plural marriage would have to be available to any gender combination for it to not fail equal protection requirements.

 

So now you support same sex marriage as a way of strengthening traditional marriage! Congratulations! I thought that you were hopeless!

 

And homosexuality is irrelevant to the government interest in improving the wellbeing of children, and relevant only to homophobia in America.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I think he is saying that even if children were helped by only .5% by gay marriage, he would still oppose gay marriage.

 

Nope, just pointing to the error in amazings logic.

 

So removing the barriers for mixed race marriages didn't make their marriages equal to non-mixed race marriages?

 

The help of marriage to children is in having both their mother and father in the home to provide and care for them. Child with a gay couple requires the child to be separated from either their mother or father, or both. Detrimental to the interest served by marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

And still unequal to the unmarried.

 

What's the difference between polygamy and polaramory?

 

Correct, they don't produce children.

Well, certainly homosexuality would be relevant to homophobia but I wouldn't think that is the only relevance.

 

Of course not. Gay parents become parents in several ways
a) They are in failed attempts at marriage with heterosexuals, and divorce. At this point they are similar to any single divorced parent- and their children would all benefit from the financial stability that a marriage is assumed to provide
b) They adopt children who have been abandoned by their biological parents. At this point they are the same as any other adoptive parents, and whatever benefits marriage is presumed to impart would be imparted to these children by having their parents married.
c) They opt for third party sperm donation/invitro or surrogacy childbirth. At this point they are the same as any other couple who opt for the same procedures, and whatever benefits marriage is presumed to impart would be imparted to these children by having their parents married.

Really what it comes down to is why do you not want the children of Gay parents to be raised by married parents?

If you believe that there is a benefit to children by having married parents, then why do you demand that the children of gay parents be denied this benefit?

 

So why should infertile heterosexual couples be allowed to marry, if they don't even have the potential to produce children?

 

And skin color would be relevant to racism, but you thought that was relevant.

 

Polygamy is marriage to more than one woman while polyamory is just more than one intimate relationship at the same time.
Main difference between multiple wives as opposed to multiple husbands is in the former paternity is established by marriage while it isn't with multiple husbands that could be the father.

 

Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
Because race is irrelevant to the governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children. Irrelevant to the institution of marriage and only relevant to racism in America.

SFJEFF
And homosexuality is irrelevant to the government interest in improving the wellbeing of children, and relevant only to homophobia in America.

 

Well, I would assume you thought it was relevant since you brought it up.

 

Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
Because race is irrelevant to the governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children. Irrelevant to the institution of marriage and only relevant to racism in America.

SFJEFF
And homosexuality is irrelevant to the government interest in improving the wellbeing of children, and relevant only to homophobia in America.

 

interracial bans. removal of interracial bans. etc.............

 

Holy crap! Really? So you've been smacked down enough on the equality for" the mother and grandmother down the street " clap trap that you are now advocating for singles having equality with married people. Please explain what that would look like. When we talk about rights for gays, we're talking about rights in relation to one another that heterosexuals have.....social security benefits, joint income tax filing, inheritance, being legal parents to each others children, and much more. Marriage for Christ sake! How is the right to marry an issue for a single person ? Do you think that a single person should be able to marry themselves and have the same rights as married people? Otherwise, how the hell is a single person going to have those same rights? You just get more band more desperate and bizarre with each passing day.