Why should not homo couples have the same marriage rights as heteros?

While you might believe that marriage is not a fundamental right, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. And while you might disagree with with what the Supreme Court says, they are the final arbiters of what is legal in this country, and if they have ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, it means that from a legal and constitutional point of view, it is a fundamental right, and restricting that right needs to serve a compelling state interest.

You can whine that it isn't really a fundamental right because there are limits on it, but guess what, all rights have limitations. Whether it's speech (time, place and manner can be dictated), the right to bear arms (need a license for certain weapons, prohibited from owning certain types, can't have one if you've been convicted of a felony), or the right to marry the person you love (can't get married to someone if already married, can't marry too close of a relative, can't get married if under a certain age).

 

Yada Yada Yada The world according to the soup Nazi. By the time your rescued from fantasy island, marriage equality will be the law of the land and then what will you do? Pretend that it's not?

 

It is not belief. it is fact a right cannot be licensed that is not whining.

The USSC did not address that fact and it proves them wrong.You cannot license speech or religon restricting any right by telling someone they have premission to do it means it is no longer a right.

It means the state has violated your rights and negated them and the USSC merely lies to ddefend that fact .

The USSC states opinion they did not address fact and no amount of defense of the state from you can change this fact

 

Yada yada .

Ignore the argument I am making whcih is based on fact and repeat some assinine document from the UN.

Marriage equality will not be accomolsihed by licensing gays to get married,'

You leave out the polygamists and others who also should have the right to get married because you are fascist and support orwellian control over the lives of others.

Now goosestep along to school and learn a few thins

 

Well there is no point in continuing this since you refuse to stay on topic. You're free to continue to inhabit your dark, alternate reality for as long as you wish. No one really cares.

You can delude yourself into believing that marriage equality will not be accomplished by licensing gays to get married,' but guess what? It's already happening.

By the way, you failed to notice that I never took a position on other alternative lifestyles like group marriage. All that I said was that it is off topic and a distraction to the subject at hand. You were challenged to present a legally defendable case for denying marriage to gays and you, like so many others failed miserably. To say that gays should not be allowed to marry because polygamy is not allowed is logically moronic and would be smacked down in any court, as would the idiotic notion that marriage is not a right. We're done here.

 

No it is not off topic at all the topic was equality in marriage which you do not support you only support a few more select individuals having the privilege of marriage then was allowed a few years ago.

WHat I clearly said is all consenting adults should be free to marry as they see fit and it is not the governments plce to decide which ones are permitted to make that choice.

That is however what they are doing and what you support.

I live in the same reality you do it is you denying it while I am calling it what it is.

 

We're done here. Your only defense is to attack me by calling me a fascist and supporter of Orwellian control over the lives of others when it's you who seek to control others by opposing marriage equality. Meet me back here when equality is the law and then tell me how we are wrong again

 

Yep- I stopped bothering- he lives in his own reality and everyone else is wrong.

Oh well- not as if any of the regular staunch opponents of gay marraige had the cojones to step up and defend their position in the thread.

 

Same argument I've always made. Heterosexuality is genetic. Homosexuality is not. When humans are sexually aroused their bodies prepare for natural procreation which requires heterosexual sex. Homosexuals can profess their religious belief that homosexuality is natural and genetic but it doesn't fool the human body or science There is not correlation between the two so why would we open marriage up and pretend once its open we can exclude others from seeking marriage as well?

Liberals love saying marriage is a right but the only Supreme Court case dealt with race not gay marriage and race as heterosexuality is genetic. Then they claim homosexual marriage is justified by the 14th amendment while ignoring the fact that using that language which has no limitation would automatically validate all other sexual preferences for marriage.


The gay marriage crowd wants to change the law just like you Jeff but the burden of proof is on those who wish to change the law.

No law was created by claiming the burden of proof is on those who don't want the law changed.


No liberal has ever been able to argue why gay marriage and only 2 person adult homosexual marriage is worthy of being lawful while excluding all other forms of marriage.

 

Because marriage should revolve around procreation. The best scenerio for a child is to be raised by a committed man and woman--and thus that is the standard that should be set for marriage. And a nation interested in surviving and thriving should encourage that standard. Sexual attractions and lifestyles are not equal and not a right. A nation who deems homosexuality as equal to hetersexuality is in self-destruction. That would be like saying a 100% gay society is equal to a 100% heterosexual society--which is simply stupid. Marriage policy should revolve around the interests of the man, woman and child....which in turn serves our nation well.

 

Marriage Equality and adoption…The Right Thing to do For The Children
by The Progressive Patriot 9.26.13

Horse(*)(*)(*)(*)! People who use children to assail gay marriage and adoption either have not given much thought to the down side of these bans-or – are being intellectually dishonest in saying that they take their position on behalf of the children which they really care little about.
It is a logical fallacy-an appeal to ignorance if you will to insist that same sex marriage and adoption of children by gays will be detrimental to those children, and that society as a whole, will somehow be harmed by these arrangements. Many will take the position that children are entitled to a “mom and a dad” That may be so but the reality is that many people in this life do not have everything that they are entitled to. There are many children without both a mother and a father, and some without either. Banning gay marriage and adoption is not going to change that.
Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children. And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.
Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else. Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy.
Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents. And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and opprobrious to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how children would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible.

 

So many questions then.

If marriage revolves around procreation- why do we allow sterile heterosexuals to marry?
Wisconsin not only allows sterile heterosexuals to marry- they require some heterosexual couples to be sterile before allowing them to marry.
Doesn't seem like marriage is revolving around procreation.
Should couples who want to get marry indicate a willingness to procreate?

We have over 100,000 adoptable children at anyone time waiting for adoption.
Do you
a) object to homosexuals adopting them- prefering that they remain in the dubious care of foster homes and orphanages or
b) agree that homosexuals should be able to adopt children- BUT- that those children shouldn't enjoy having the benefits of marriage like children adopted by heterosexual couples?

 

Yeah- you keep making that same argument.

Appeal to bogus science doesn't make an argument. Since no marriage law requires procreation, a willingness or ability to procreate, and in some instances requires couples be unable to procreate, currently marriage law is unrelated to procreation.

Actually the courts keep saying that marriage is a right.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (188, the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)
"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

The Supreme Court has firmly established that the right to marry is an individual right- and the State cannot take that right away without a compelling reason- the Supreme Court has ruled against the State prohibiting marriage of inmates, men who owe child support and mixed race marriages.

The burden of proof has been satisfied in what 12 courts so far? Every one of them finding that anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional.

Since only conservatives who want do not want homosexuals to have marriage equality bring up that strawman, not surprising that no one has bothered to play along.

If you want to be able to marry your mom, you can argue that on your own time.

 

We don't have to micro manage who is sterlile or not. To suggest a regulation is simply ignorant. We can establish that marriage is between a man and woman. That is what has been proven successful and it serves a purpose. We don't have to make it harder on straight people and our government just to spite them. The gay lifestyle is not important to the success of our nation. It is not equal to heterosexuality. It shouldn't be treated as equal..

We should revolve the policy to include the interests of children--and they are best served by a committed mom and dad in the home. The policy is for heterosexuals----who procreate at an incredible rate. The point of marriage is to encourage heterosexuals to establish the best situation for kids before having them or hopefully being motivated to establish that ideal home after they come into the world.

The gay agenda doesn't really give a rat's ass about the horrible situation kids are in now days--we have gone through a downhill spiral since marriage has lost its true focus and reasoning for existence. A perfect time for gays to jump on board...when the true purpose is being lost.

Frankly---the gay agenda doesn't care about kids. They care about society---accepting their sexual lifestyle---as equal to a hetersexual lifestyle. That is what it is all about. If people like me didn't bring up how changing marriage affected our offspring then they wouldn't either.

Adoption is a totally different issue, and a different thread.

 

I think you should be arguing against divorce if your concern is keeping families together and keeping kids in an 'ideal' environment.

Same sex couples marrying does not affect this and this is not a reason to deny them the right to marry. It's just a good argument against divorce and encouraging more heterosexuals to marry.

 

Why should any of us who don't believe in the Christian God give a crap about what you think his opinion is about homosexuality? You have a perfect right to follow his rules since you believe in them, but why would you expect anyone who does not to care? NADA WHO ART IN NADA, NADA IS THY NAME. NOTHING DOES NOT RULE.

 

I see only you are allowed to drop names like Nazi.

I apologize for hurting your feelings.

The fact is i have consistently supported it for all.

You only support the privilege for a select number

 

Frankly---the gay agenda doesn't care about kids. .[/QUOTE]

Frankly the anti-gay activists don't care about kids either.

You use the issue of children and procreation in order to oppose homosexuals marrying.

Homosexual couples are raising children- their own- and those abandoned by heterosexuals.

Anti-Gay activists care so little about children that they would prefer that those children not be raised within a marriage rather than allow homosexuals to be treated equally with heterosexuals

 

Probably so. All we need to do is let people marry.

But the only way we can "establish" this is by waving our hands and SAYING so.

How can something not tried prove successful? But I think we all agree marriage serves a purpose, which is to be married. Find the right person, and it's pretty nice.

And in fact nothing is being made harder on anyone. Marriage is being made easier for gay people.

Unless you like things like liberty and equalty. As I recall, our nation was based on these ideas. NOW they aren't important anymore? Since when are rights and freedoms supposed to be outlawed because some people don't think they are useful?

Multiple studies show that children do best when they have two committed parents. The sex of the parents turns out not to be relevant.

Nothing aboutr same-sex marriage inhibits any of that procreation in any way.

You are confusing heterosexuals with parents. ONE of the advantages of marriage is, kids do best with two parents who care. Whether they're the same sex or not. If you are concerned with good parenting, you should be paying attention to how to be a good parent.

On the contrary, one element of the gay agenda is to GET MARRIED because it's a better environment for children.

Ah, the "good old days" argument, a golden time that even Pliny the Elder longed for. My wife and I, married and childless for decades, find lots of focus and reason for the existence of our marriage. We'd do it again tomorrow if we needed to.

Chuckle. We want devoted parents for our children, parents who care, and who provide stable homes? I have a great idea - let's prohibit them from marrying! Yeah, that oughta work.

Frankly, this is flat false.

Marriage is not being changed. None of the laws need to be altered at all. Equality is indeed the goal. Our offspring are BETTER OFF if we allow people to marry and raise them.

Not totally different, if you are concerned with raising children in stable homes with two parents.

 

You have suggested the very regulation you call ignorant. You say the only reason two people of the same sex cannot marry is because between the two of them they cannot reproduce. You made the argument you claimed was ignorant.

Also, we are not subjects of our government we do not have to prove that our actions benefit society in any way. Liberties and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is guaranteed to us inn the constitution.

Gay doesn't mean sterile. Gay people can and do procreate. So what you are actually saying is the government should support and approve of children of heterosexual couples and children of gay parents should (*)(*)(*)(*) off. If this revolves around children as you claim this only hurts children that have homosexual patents. This isn't about children that is a lie. This is about you wanting to abuse government powers to keep homosexuality from gaining legitimacy.

If it was about children you would be100% for sane sex marriage. Because gay people have kids, they adopt kids and you want them to be screwed over Nevada their parents are gay. Your entire argument is not only dishonest it's malicious toward children that can't help their parents sexuality.

The "gay agenda" is a completely fabricated boogeyman you have invented so you can feel justified in your anonymous demonizing of people you don't even know. This is why the arguments you post don't survive in the courts, they are baseless, they are untrue and they rely on your cockimamie monster under the bed conspiracy theory to have any validity.

"Oh, the sky is falling chicken little", says foxy loxy. "You better go fetch ducky lucky and Lucy goosey and come back here to me, so we can tell the king."

Frankly the gay agenda is a pretend monster under the bed that that you use to justify your malicious intent toward children of gay patents. It makes you feel as though you are being noble if you pretend you are fighting some imaginary giant. When really all you are doing, Don Quixote, is fighting wind mills.

Yeah, you definitely would say this. Because above you basically said, "to hell with them if they get adopted by homosexuals." And this is your way of attempting to admonish yourself from your malicious statements above.

You don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about children. You want them to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed over by the system to further your backward political ideals. That is despicable when you make children the casualties of your hatred.

You would just rather slaughter 54 million of them in the womb verses allow gay people to adopt them.

 

What exactly do you "support for all?" Uncles marrying their nieces? Fathers marrying their daughters? Old men marrying 6 underage girls?? Spell it out.

 

I'm not disagreeing much with you here. However, I don't think the problem with our nation's kids are so much divorce...as it is children born out of wedlock. Regarding marriage.... I think the first step to fixing marriage is to get rid of no-fault grounds. It is...a commitment, so why not treat it that way? The second step would be to get rid of common law marriage benefits. The third would be to stop over paying tax (welfare) payments for head of household---which discourages marriage. A head of household gets way more money back at the end of the year then that head of household comes close to paying in taxes at all. As it stands now---government encourages the wrong thing through its policies.

But you have to ask....would gays want to jump into marriage if it became a real commitment? If it was something they couldn't get out of simply because they were bored and wanted to see other people?

 

I stated many times it should be a right between ANY two or more consenting adults.

 

So you want to make it less convenient not to marry and more difficult to get out of the marriage ? Ya think maybe ending no fault divorce might cancel out anything that is encouraging marriage by making it seem more like a trap? Marriage is going to be a serious commitment to some and no so serious for others regardless

And why do you propose all of this? To discourage gay folks from wanting to marry? Are you sure that you wont just be encouraging more single people, gay and straight to have kids without being married?

 

Marriage policy should revolve around the family however it's defined.

People who use children to assail gay marriage and adoption either have not given much thought to the down side of these bans-or – are being intellectually dishonest in saying that they take their position on behalf of the children which they really care little about.

It is a logical fallacy-an appeal to ignorance if you will to insist that same sex marriage and adoption of children by gays will be detrimental to those children, and that society as a whole, will somehow be harmed by these arrangements. Many will take the position that children are entitled to a “mom and a dad” That may be so but the reality is that many people in this life do not have everything that they are entitled to. There are many children without both a mother and a father, and some without either. Banning gay marriage and adoption is not going to change that.

Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children. And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else. Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy.

Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents. And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and opprobrious to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how children would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of
allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible.