Same-sex marriage will not change a single day-to-dy thing for Americans

To suggest that SCOTUS won't make an unprecedented restructuring of society within three years is "triggery happy"?

The first rule of speech is to make your point succinctly. As Einstein, and I'm paraphrasing here, "if you can't say it briefly you don't know it well enough."

If there's a clear point you find you can make from that obscenely long quote, then make it. It's a valuable skill - I can take a 15 page paper and state it's point in four sentences or less. Give it a try.

 

I already got your point. The constitution is illegitimate. As I said, it makes your constitutional "arguments" sound hypocritical. Not to mention irrelevant/

I totally didn't get the rape culture comment. That seems like it has nothing to do with this topic. Your confusion is noted.

Again: There is a difference between a business not serving gays (discrimination) and someone who owns a business not wanting to provide services to something that violates their religion.

Should a Kosher or Halal deli be forced to cater a gay wedding?

Should a Christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a Satanic celebration?

Should a Jewish photographer be forced to photgraph a Neo-Nazi event?

 

And so it begins...

 

>>>Quoted Post Deleted<<<

That's not the point. The point is there is another side and you folks REFUSE to allow any education of it and in fact punish people for expressing a belief in it. I'm not appealing to tradition. I'm not arguing for the point right now. I'm pointing out that there IS another side, whether you like it or not and you are refusing any debate on the subject and are punishing those who express a belief in it. That is NOT education. That is indoctrination.

Not only that but the people who disagree with having their children indoctrinated with it have NO right to be informed and they have NO right to opt their child out of the subject matter without completely taking them out of the schools that THEY are paying for.

How the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you claim that's not indoctrination.... not just indoctrination... arguably it's FORCIBLE indoctrination.

 

Because there are currently at least two cases in the Federal Court system that would strike down the bans. California's ban took about four to five years to get up to the Supreme Court. It's possible that with all of the decisions that have been handed down recently, the S

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't extend rights to the states. Through the process of incorporation that started in 1925, states have been increasingly held to more and more of the Bill of Rights, which only contains rights of people. However, the way the Constitution works, just because one Amendment of the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the States, not all of them are incorporated at once. As for the Second Amendment, it has been incorporated against the States as of 2010's McDonald v. Chicago.

Did I say it was illegitimate? No I did not. The states willingly accepted the document, and whether de jure or de facto, the Constitution and all twenty-seven Amendments are the operative basic law of the land. However, my view of the Constitution's fitness is irrelevant to whether or not I believe something is against the Constitution. Must be that conservative education serving you, oh so well....

 

You are saying that you think it's illegitimate. As for education, I think we already established how weak yours is to mine during the thread where you insisted that the Constitution requires national health care.

 

It was the principal Robert Riley who claimed the speaker spoke of "gay sex".

 

I think it will make them more informed about other sex practices and behavior and could eventually lead into a sexist prejudice issue in America, not unlike the discrimination minorities experience. There will always be those with strong diverse views, and it will make homosexuals more of a visible target at work, etc.

I don't oppose same sex marriage for them, we just don't know the full extent of what it will cause in society until it is fully implemented.

 

That's still hearsay and thus potentially dubious.

No, I said the Constitution is inadequate, not illegitimate. As for your education compared to mine, you couldn't hold a candle to me, I've dealt with fourth graders who have a better grasp of the Constitution than you. You haven't established crap. I also did not say the Constitution requires national healthcare, just that Article One, Section One, Clause One makes national healthcare constitutional by its granting Congress the power to establish laws that further the general welfare of the country.

 

That's why heterosexual couples are encouraged to marry. Birth of a child, only obligates two people in the world. The woman who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so. Without them to fulfill those parental obligations of care and support, the child has only the hope that someone will voluntarily assume those obligations. Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry increases the number of children with the benefit of a two parent household and reduces the number of children in the most common alternative. A single mother on her own, an absent or unknown father and no one willing to voluntarily assume those obligations.

 

Under the law of the United States, parents are not encouraged to marry. That would be an attempt to legislate morality, something that is difficult at best, and more than likely entirely impossible to be constitutional under the 1787 Constitution.

 

Legalizing same sex marriage will not automatically result in legal challenges to churches wanting to opt out. If that happens, correcting that injustice will NOT require repealing legalized same sex marriage.

 

I think you got cut off here. As far as California, the court has yet to hand down any really decisive decision suggesting that there in fact is a Constitutional right to marry who you want to. Their decision regarding California was that those bringing the case up didn't have grounds to do so. You have to prove actual injury.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. Before incorporation, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. The problem with how it hasn't been applied to the states is that the original SCOTUS decisions basically said, "these ones, because we say so." Incorporation isn't done selectively because of the way the Constitution works, it's because the way SCOTUS has passed down decisions over time, but the general idea is that the whole thing is applied. That's the trend and, to cite the common liberal statements on such things of uncertainty, "the writing is on the wall."

 

The idea is to establish the marital relationship BEFORE they become parents. Thus the encouragement of all heterosexual couples to marry. The only couples with a potential of procreation. Wasn't too many decades ago when most states made it against the law for a man to have sex with a woman who was not his wife. Not only encouraged, but actually required every heterosexual couple to marry.

Is it morality that obligates a father to provide and care for his children? Or is it because, other than the mother who gave birth, there is no other person in the world responsible for providing and caring for the child?
The only attempt to legislate morality is in "gay marriage", created to win more respect from society and dignity for gays.

 

No where near as "potentially dubious" as your baseless speculation based upon nothing more than what you can imagine in your own mind.

 

Since I share the moral values of most Americans, I'm quite satisfied with the progress that is being made.

If you need to fixate upon your hateful tales, however, please do. If you ever get around to admitting to your sources, you might also list the states where gender discrimination had ended that are going to re-institute it as a consequence of having experienced it.

Do you get in a tizzy when I note your being simpatico with Islamic theocracies under sharia law in regard to the issue, rather than advanced democratic nations with a Christian heritage, or do you delight in that alliance?

The nations and states that have you so upset:

Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguay), several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Mexico and the United States) allow same-sex couples to marry. A law has been passed by the Westminster Parliament in the United Kingdom, effective in England and Wales, which will be fully in force on 29 March 2014. The Scottish parliament has passed a bill that allows same-sex marriages to take place from October 2014. Polls in various countries show that there is rising support for legally recognizing same-sex marriage across race, ethnicity, age, religion, political affiliation, and socioeconomic status.

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia, have legalized same-sex marriage; in Illinois, although same-sex marriage is currently in effect in Cook County, Illinois, it goes into effect for the rest of the state on June 1, 2014. Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Oregon recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Limited recognition has been granted to out-of-state same-sex marriages in Ohio, Missouri, and Colorado. US district courts in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Texas have declared state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.


On the other hand, you'll always have Iran, I suppose.



.

 

"Same-sex marriage will not change a single day-to-dy thing for Americans."

Except for one thing, and I have said it time and time again;

The divorce lawyers will only get richer.

Gay women are only about as likely to stay monogamous as are heterosexual men and women, and gay men have a terrible track record for infidelities and frequent breakups.

In the end, it will be the divorce lawyers who are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

So, if you believe that, do you also believe that ending the institution of marriage for heterosexual couples would increase or decrease the percentage of monogamous relationships?

How does the domestic contract impact a relationship's stability, regardless of the gender aspect?

 

The first couple that successfully sued for a right to gay marriage in Massachusetts, was broke up within a year and a half.

 

He came up with a defense of something happening that you said would not because it didn't. That trick has been around at least since a very nice young lady chef taught it to me back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Hope you enjoyed the special sauce on your sandwich

I've never understood why churches have tax exemptions anyway

Your whole last para is a butt hurt whine of "Oh we poor, poor religious, we're not being allowed to shove our religion down everyone's throat and force our morality on the general populace as GA-HAWD says we must , Oh poor us, being denied our sacred freedom to deny others theirs."

When will you guys give it up? I mean, not even the POPE really agrees with you anymore.

 

This is a complete aside. If we determined that the divorce rate for whites with brown hair and blue eyes was 94%, that wouldn't be justification for denying marital rights to whites with brown hair and blue eyes. Just the same, if we found that some group would have significantly longer monogamous relationships by giving them marital rights, it's still no justification. The point of marriage, from the government's standpoint, isn't to ensure that people don't get divorced. If it was, we could just bad divorces.

 

I don't presume to pass judgement on anybody's relationships.
And I don't give two rat's a$$es about gay marriage or heterosexual marriage.
If your took my remarks to be an indictment against gay marriage, then you were simply mistaken.

The truth I offered you regarded divorce lawyers.
Their business will pick-up.
Divorce lawyers will make a LOT more money now that their customer base has expanded tremendously.

We can agree on that much, right?

 

Even as internet-educated as you are, you still couldn't answer these simple questions:

Should a Kosher or Halal deli be forced to cater a gay wedding?

Should a Christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a Satanic celebration?

Should a Jewish photographer be forced to photgraph a Neo-Nazi event?

 

I don't think any of these have ever happened have they?

 

Since I'm not religious, I think you clearly misinterpreted my post. I've no interest in shoving a religion down anyone's throat since I don't have one myself. Maybe you could highlight where exactly in my post I was trying to shove a religion down your throat?

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't that long ago that no one had ever been taken to court for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Our society is changing rapidly.