The gay attack on religion is dangerous

In states where marriage is between a man and woman, the law does not say that a homo-man cannot marry a woman, or that a lesbo-woman cannot marry a man. Therefore, your argument that homosexuals are denied marriage in a man/woman marriage state is a FALSE argument. They can marry, they simply choose not to of their own volition.

 

In states that limit marriage to opposite sex couples, they are in violation of 14th amendment.
If Jim can marry Joan, he has to be able to marry Jason as well or its gender discrimination.

 

No it's not discrimination. Both genders are given the ability to marry, therefore neither gender is denied marriage. Some are simply denying themselves marriage by the lifestyle they so choose.

 

That's a really asinine argument. It could have been said that miscegenation laws did not limit a black woman's right to marriage because she could have married a black man instead of the white man she loved ...

 

The difference is that a person's behavior is a choice, but a person's skin color is not. That's why your analogy fails, because one person's behavior is not another person's skin color.

 

No, but you could post a yelp review saying the music sucks.

 

Wrong. The original decision to differentiate humans by skin color was a choice as well. We are just making a decision at this point to no longer differentiate by sexual orientation.

 

It's alright, I make the same mistake from time to time. Happens to all of us.

 

Of course it is. If Jim can marry Joan but not Jason, that is discrimination based on gender.

This argument didn't work for interracial marriage bans either.

- - - Updated - - -

Two false comparisons here. You are implying orientation is a choice. It isn't. And you are claiming marrying someone of a different race is not a choice. It is.

 

@OP

And I'm gonna be honest here:

(*)(*)(*)(*) religion.

 

Well I guess that's a start. Maybe next time you can try being intelligent as well.

 

I bet for every thing you can find that is different about humans and animals, I can find two things that are the same. Also, we are not talking about forcing people to deny their faith, we are talking about using one's faith to discriminate against others. Imagine if a Muslim apartment manager refused rent apartments to non-Muslims or a Jewish loan officer refused to give loans to Christians?

 

Actually, it is. If it isn't good enough to protect, it is not much of a right. I'm interested however, to where you get this idea that having parents is an unalienable right? It's not in the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.

But isn't murder illegal? It is not illegal to give up your child (as long as the child is not abandoned).

Truthfully I don't know the answer to that, I am not a psychologist or a researcher. As I have not seen other psychologists or researchers questioning the methods involved, and I have seen other psychological studies done in a similar fashion, I will believe what they have written until shown otherwise.

 

You're kidding.

But...let's play along. I can do the same thing for steak and a turd - and regardless how correct I'll be, you will not be convinced to douse the turd in A-1 and eat it.

Let that be sufficient evidence that your argument is ridiculous.

Which they should be allowed to do.

So?

 

People are animals. Scientific fact.

I see you have never been discriminated against.

 

When anti miscegenation laws were abolished marriage was extended to every race, not only African or European. If, gays are saying that purpose of marriage to allow people to create family, then there is no valid reason to exclude close related couples from 1000 benefits extended to gays.

Don't you see that there is no way out of it. Gay rights are not people's right they are special rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Restriction was removed for GAYS ONLY, leaving millions of close related couples without 1000 benefits.

 

Really? Can you show us which states that legalized same sex marriage restrict 2 straight men from marrying?

Do you ever think before you post?

 

Close relatives are excluded from 1000 benefits associated with marriage.

 

Fascinating. Maybe you'd like to answer my question now?

 

I see...so you are not so much against gay rights, you are pro incest.

Good luck with that.

 

The false equivalency aside, the truth is that homosexuality is found in nature.

So you have no problem being discriminated against? You wouldn't care if you were denied a loan because of your religious beliefs and not because of you ability to pay?

 

Are you saying that marriage is about sex?
I thought main motivation and purpose of gay marriage was to allow gays to create families.
Family does not mean sex.

 

I take it you do not have much experience in either marriage or sex...allow me to assist. Often times when two people love each other they have certain physical attractions that lead to desires and a wish to make sure the pleasures they create are maintained. Sometimes these people take legal steps to assure they are allowed to be together in situations and circumstance that might otherwise keep them apart, particularly when truly needed. There is also the desire to be seen as a societal couple and stable in this. Sometimes this couple decides to procreate or in other ways take on the responsibility and commitment of raising a child that gives them joy and further love.

Family does not mean sex...but, sex often leads to family. It is also an extremely pleasant aspect of human life and sought by most as both entertainment and deeper bonding, you will probably find out eventually.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with 1000 benefits that many families are missing.
Once you find legal definition of love let me know.
Also, you made an important point, quite often real married couple procreates without explicit agreement of both parties.
That is why we have marriage, i.e. government regulation of the relationship between man and woman.
Fake couples, like gay couples do not need to be regulated by the government.

 

No it is not.

I never said or implied any such thing, obviously.

Common sense.

And I should find that interesting because...?

Sure, but the legal penalties are imposed after the fact. Doesn't take much imagination to see what a nightmare it would be to try to prevent murder through such prior restraint as you're suggesting to protect the right to decent parenting.

That's pretty sad.

You might as well be, for all the misunderstanding of the human condition you're displaying.