Texas ordered to pay $600,000 to same-sex couples.......

It has everything to do with the conversation. Remember, you said...

But that's the root of the problem. The Government did get involved. The Government gives different benefits to married and single people. The Government regulates marriage. The Government discriminated against some people who loved each other and wanted to spend their lives together and wanted to have the same benefits as other people.

Previously you used the term "incentivized". Now you say the Government is "encouraging" such unions. Do you have any evidence that the Government is incentivizing or encouraging gay marriage?

 

Sorry, that's a Judicial rewrite, and a bad one at that. Pure politics.

No, you haven't even come close. Race is not the same as Behavior. one is genetic, and provable...one is not.

If we were to tell a certain Gender they could not get Married? You bet it would be. However that's not what was happening. Any gender could get married under the rules of Marriage. Marriage has never included same sex in America.

No, you have not...because its impossible. Race is not the same thing as a bedroom choice. We can tell by a sample of your Blood or DNS what race you are...I cannot tell your sexual choices or behaviors from them.

Full stop on the Nonsense Rahl.

Line above clearly debunks this.

 

you're confusing sexual attraction with race.
you can't change your race or gender (sorry leftists) and you can't change your sexual orientation - only suppress it due to social stigma.

 

But you said (my emphases)...

Clearly that was incorrect. Up until 50 years ago ...

Every person in America had the same right to Marry a member of the opposite sex as long as that person was of the same ethnicity. ​

It's clear you are against same sex marriage for the same reasons that people were against interracial marriage 100-50 years ago - the Bible. Now you say "Racism was stopped. thankfully." The Bible hasn't changed it's teachings. Why do you feel differently than people with your religious convictions did a Century ago?

 

See post #120

 

We were discussing killing humans, not embryos. But, then, your God didn't much care when He horrifically drowned thousands of pregnant women.

 

I'm agnostic so nice try. I'm also pro-choice up until the point of sentience (3 months) as a fair compromise.

 

It didn't take a Constitutional amendment to end the ban against interracial marriage. Are you against that also?

 

Driving a vehicle with a manual transmission is abnormal.

Something being abnormal is not a reason to make it illegal.

 

I'm in an interracial relationship and I think it should still be up to the states to decide. Let the free market and the people's will reign free. If the state I lived in denied me and my lovely a right to marry, I would move elsewhere. The reason is because marriage is not protected in the Constitution.

 

Ummmm...isn't this what we've been discussing? Yes they have incentive to grow population.

"love each other" "spend lives together" this is feelingsville. Totally unquantifiable, and irrelevant to a Government unless it's helping with the goal stated above. neither rof those helps population growth by themselves, as such are of no real interest to a Government.

Case in point, the Polygamists. Why isn't their Happiness of concern?

This is not discrimination. It's simply the rules of an established Institution. It doesn't include every group and their happiness...its about Man and Wife. Noone has some right to a Marriage just because their human.

Yes I did, and they're in the same meaning. We get tax breaks for children for instance...the government wants new taxpayers.

As to incentivizing Gar Marriage? Well they will get the same Marriage Benefits/Penalties that come with any Marriage wont they?

 

No it isn't.

Marriage is a bahavior. You can't ban a couple from marriage because of race, or gender.

This argument didn't work for interracial bans either.

Choosing someone of a different race to "bed" is identical to choosing someone of the same sex.

Demonstrable reality rich.

No it doesn't

 

I won't say it's normal, homosexuality seems to be an exception to the norm. But I'd you want to classify it as a genetic defect. Would you ban people with 12 toes from getting married?

 

Hahaha, that is true. Although I wonder is it really the transmission choice that makes it abnormal or is it the entire concept of a vehicle? Clearly things like vehicles and tools are abnormal in relation to much of the animal kingdom...but they give a value back to us. I don't think I have to pint out how valuable vehicles are and what they offer back to us.
In such a way a Union like Traditional Marriage is similar in that it offers something back.

 

No, of course I wouldn't. And I wouldn't classify being Gay a Genetic defect either. Genetic links have not been proven. if someday they are I will instantly change my stance on the issue, as I believe that immutable characteristics should not be holding anyone back from anything offered to others.

 

I did

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that from a standpoint of a society, it gives nothing back in the way a traditional pairing does. Bonds, Happiness, and Joy are all things that simply cannot be legislated on their own unknowable merits.

Again on getting Government out, how would you protect all those benefits you say you are missing out on if Government wasn't involved?

 

No thats what the side you are supporting here does.

I know you aren't a leftist but that is EXACTLY what they do. You can't tell me you haven't heard them proclaim their "struggle" is like the struggle blacks had for equal rights in this country. Why else do they hammer that point over and over again? Their entire argument is to high-jack the 60s movement for equal rights and pretend they can equate this movement with that one as insulting as that is to the children of slaves and women in this country.

That is how they have legitimized their sexual preference by elevating it to a "civil right"

I believe and it is a belief that there is a sizable amount of white people in this movement who have joined it because subconsciously they are desperate to belong to a minority group so they don't feel marginalized in a society that has declared war on the traditional family structure and white men in particular. This is their subconscious defense to pulling themselves out of the firing line and pretend they are also a legitimate minority group apart from the culture and race they grew up in.

And before people dismiss this theory do not forget about the 2 white people who were leaders in the black community by pretending to be black. Its not so farfeteched when you actually think about it.

 

Disagree of course. Guess we'll get nowhere on that one.

Marriage is not a behavior. Where do you get this stuff???
You don't need Government to sanction a behavior. you don't need a license for a behavior...etc etc etc...please just stop responding with gibberish just because you feel you need the last word.
This one is pure nonsense. heres a definition for you, since it appears you need it.

Marriage is NOT a behavior at all.

Of course not, race isn't a behavior anymore than marriage is.

What someone does in the bedroom isn't what we're talking about.

Sure, just like Marriage being a behavior. Nothing but last word nonsense Rahl.

 

Absolutely correct. The evidence is clear that its a mental disorder and there are plenty of scientific facts proving that. More depression, more anxiety more suicide etc. These are all proven in studies on the gay community and they cannot continue to pretend its society's fault.

 

[QUOTE="RichT2705, post: 1067367902, member: 8816

Marriage is not a behavior[/QUOTE]
You stated same sex relationships is a behavior. If they are, so are opposite sex or interracial.
.

Your posts.

I don't post gibberish. I refute your nonsense with reality, facts and court rulings.

Then you shouldn't try and call same sex relationships a behavior.

Neither is gender.

It's what you want to talk about.

Pretending you don't get this doesn't really fool anyone rich.

 

The life of a fetus is not specifically protected in the Constitution.
A woman's right to work is not specifically protected in the Constitution.
Killing in self defense is not specifically protected in the Constitution.

Legislatures have taken the framework of the Constitution and built a set of laws upon it. It is the function of the Judiciary to ensure that these laws are permitted withing that framework. Different Jurists will interpret the framework in different ways.

Eighty years ago you could not have found a State where you and your "lovely" could have lived.

 

Well of course it does. I have never once argued against traditional marriage. My parents are in a traditional marriage. I think they are great.

But just like the fellow that wants to shift gears and press a clutch doesn't take away from my ability to drive a vehicle with an automatic transmission, two people of the same sex doesn't take away anything from a traditional couple's marriage.

 

Actually Genius it did.

The 14th amendment guaranteed equal rights to vote for blacks. Interracial marriage is constitutional specifically because of this ending the denial of rights based on race and unlike gay marriage, race is actually mentioned and addressed in the 14th amendment. Homosexuality is nowhere to be found for good reason. Its not a race.

 

The 14th amendment made giving that decision to states impossible because it denied the ability to limit rights based on race.

 

I view a difference between gays and transgenders. I view transgenders as having body dis-morphia which is treatable through medication and therapy. I view being gay as a genetic variance in which a population is just not attracted to the opposite gender.