Gay lobby’s next target: Benefits in all 50 states

Then, have a nice cookie and stop bellywhinging.

If, however, you feel irreconcilably alienated from America, there are nations that share your attitude.

The coloured ones where sharia law pertains and there is no gender equality in marriage law should suit you admirably:



Good luck!

 

Its no secret conservatives want the christian version of sharia law, they just call it "religious freedom".

 

There wasn't 'gender equality' in the US military until very recently, when women were no longer barred from serving in combat.

Women are 51% of the US population, while homosexuals are 3-5% - but this issue never got a fraction of the attention from you guys as the gay issue did.

This is pretty strong evidence that 'equality' isn't your true agenda.

According to the 10th Amendment, marriage is a states' rights issue, therefore their interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong.

 

It doesn't matter if only 2 people were gay. Rights are rights and are never up for a vote. Why do you hate America?

 

I asked you to clarify your point and what relevance it has, there's nothing to "admit to" as you've given me nothing to concede that detracts from my beliefs.

Explain the harm to the standing social structure by allowing more people access to it, then I'll concede you have a point.

I disagree. If you believe in freedom, it's for the better. Why should Edie Windsor have paid substantially more than her heterosexual married counterparts in inheritance tax? Why should the partners of gay people be denied hospital access? Why should the partners of LEGALLY married people be deported (pre-DOMA Section 3 being struck down)?

If it helps those gay kids struggling with coming to terms with their sexuality and the hostility around them stand a bit taller, it's worth it.

 

Wow! after all this time, many of you are not even close to comprehending the motives. Government has no concern regarding whether a married woman reproduces or not. And there only concern is the single woman does procreate and we end up with a single mother on her own, with an absent or unknown father because frequently they don't have sufficient resources to adequately provide and care for her children. And secondly because most pregnancies are unplanned. If government were to "check on" whether the couple planned to procreate and only made marriage available to those who immediately intend to do so, government would miss the majority of the couples they intended to include. We don't know which couples will procreate. We only know that all who do, will exclusively be heterosexual couples. Mirroring marriage exclusively limited to heterosexual couples.

 

Gay rights IS about gender equality.

"Gay marriage" has always been about assuring equality under the law based on gender. Denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples discriminates against people based on gender.

 

Yeah, it's discrimination based upon the potential of procreation. The same basis of the limitation of marriage to men and women. Intolerable if it effects homosexuals. Not even noticed if it does not.(*)

One can recognize the discrimination homosexual have experienced and STILL recognize that the thousands of years old limitation of marriage to men and women is in fact intended to include all couples with the potential of procreation and IS NOT intended to exclude homosexuals. Man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother. Freaking BIOLOGY! NOT persecution of gays.(*)

 

Marriage has nothing to do with "the potential of procreation". Marriage has to do with 1,138 federal rights that are endowed by upon couples of consenting adults who are granted a marriage license by the state. Right now this granting of rights is discriminatory based on gender in 37 states, and THAT is intolerable and must/WILL be changed.

Again, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, and "one man, one woman" is only one definition from one period of time, the definition has changed plenty of times across many cultures and eras.

 

your bull (*)(*)(*)(*) has been known to be bull (*)(*)(*)(*) since we got rid of bans on interracial marriage

 

being female or male is a sex being denied marriage to some one based on the gender found in the couple is discrimination based on sex

being denied marriage to a man or woman where the only difference between you and people who can marry that person is your sex is discrimination based on sex

its not hard to understand that so why do you pretend you cant

 

so dose a person banned from marriage with consenting adult of there choice based on not being of the same race have = rights to racist who can marry the consenting adult of there choice because they would always choose some 1 of the same race and with people who happened to choose some 1 of the same race?

 

doesn't matter how many people choose to get married its there right to pick some one if the same gender if they wish

 

no its just about rights you can be an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) because you don't like gay people all you want you just cant stop them from getting married to some one of the same gender cause you don't like it

 

Good for them, but marriage isn't a constitutional right for anyone, it's a states' rights issue.

 

No, it's an individual rights issue.

Just like when SCOTUS forced states to legalize interracial marriage.

 

and the states don't have the right to not give = rights to the citizens of this nation

 

Why? WTF motivates this transfer of rights, assorted guarantees and financial benefits? What is the historical reason we as a society do that?

 

That is the transcendent ecumenism of theocrats, and why American evangelicals are kindred spirits with Islamists in prejudices concerning sexual orientation.

 

we haves figured out that treating people in the same applicable situation differently is not fair

so we let women vote we let interracial couples marry

wear starting to let gay couples marry because its the same dam thing because they meet every requirement we have for married couples

 

I'm Bahai and my arguments are secular. I find 'evangelicals' to usually be loons.

The Founders didn't intend for marriage to be a right, or for people to have a "right" purely on the basis of what/who they are attracted to. Therefore gay marriage should not be a right under the 14th Amendment.

The far left however just doesn't get it, they're just hung up on their emotions and illusions of 'progress'.

Under their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, you could argue that pedophiles have a right to view and own child porn. If they aren't producing the porn themselves then they aren't directly harming children, so they could claim 'discrimination on the basis of their sexual attraction'.

This is why the 14th Amendment argument for gay marriage is bunk - it's a states' right issue, and a minor one at that, nothing more. And should have received no more national attention that the issue of women serving in combat.

 

Genders are not equal.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage; ....

Because only women become "mothers" and only a "man" becomes a "father". But your right in that gay rights is about eliminating each and every recognition of this difference in the law because it offends the gays. Marriage is nothing but societies preference that mothers and fathers provide and care for their children together as opposed to the alternative of only one or neither of them doing so. A preference that must be eliminated to avoid offending the gays who can't participate.

 

Gays are not the only people offended by the government discriminating against people under the law based on gender. All decent human beings are.

And for the thousandth time, marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

 

Ironic, an avatar that says "fight the hate" but uses a fist logo used by the New Black Panthers hate group.

You gonna use this logo next?

 

A Nazi swastika? Well at least now I have better idea what your ideological worldview is rooted in, disturbing as it may be.