A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

No, he Schooled you big time as he always does, and now, it hertz..... In the end, it hertz ..

 

Its relevant to the limitation of government recognition of marriage to men and women that existed from colonial days through the 20th century.

Yes, NOW procreation has been deemed to be irrelevant to marriage by judicial declaration. It is an erroneous declaration based upon fabricated BS. The historical record is clear. The limitation was always based upon biology. The exact same biology the same limitation is based upon in paternity statutes. Only women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so.

 

Nope. Married couples not procreating is of no concern to the government. Only unmarried couples that do procreate is a concern.

 

You are simply name-calling and flame-baiting. I'm sorry you've run out of intellectual discussion. I really am.

 

Do you really want to ban premarital sex or just make it against the law to have babies out of wedlock?

 

You haven't offered anything warranting an intellectual discussion. Your points have been addressed, and refuted. Your understanding of constitutional law is lacking. I pointed all of that out. Not sure what else you want.

 

it isn't, as procreation, or the ability to procreate has never been a requirement of marriage. Without that requirement, there is no legally justifiable reason to ban same sex couples, which is why you lost in court.

no, it has ALWAYS been irrelevant.

This is dumb, and has been refuted countless times.

 

so if you can't ban the elderly couple, or infertile couple from marrying, you can't ban same sex couples from marrying. This is why you lost in court.

 

ROFL More false accusations, more name-calling, more insults. Sad.

It's biased people full of hate who are seek to pass laws segregating people and which are biased for some and against others.

 

Your points have been addressed, and refuted. Your understanding of constitutional law is lacking. I pointed all of that out. Not sure what else you want.

 

His methods are to insult as a final retort.

Proof.

 

....in your opinion.

The fact remains human beings have been joined in marriage for long as recorded time and probably even for recorded time. It will continue to do so long after the USA is gone. Yes, governments impose laws on marriage, but they can't stop it, only drive it underground. I was at a gay marriage in Key West in the early 1990s. Was that marriage recognized by the state of Florida or the US government? By SCOTUS? No. Did the marriage happen anyway and the people in attendance recognize they are married? Yes. Governments can't stop people, they can only slow them down.

 

Neither. Ill wait here while you chase down the strawmen

 

No one EVER claimed it was. How many years have you been chasing that strawman.
And in ancient Mesopotamia a man purchased his wife like a slave and if she didn't produce a child, the man got a refund of his purchase price.

 

No worries. I'm content to laugh at those who declare they support freedom and smaller government except when it concerns abortion and gay marriage, then they want Federal troops marching in to assist.

 

Regulating gay marriage that had never been regulated before is an EXPANSION of big government, so cant imagine what you are going on about. And while it can be argued that improving the well being of children is a legitimate governmental interest, winning more "respect and dignity" for gays is not.

 

While I thank you for confirming that you believe big government gives us our rights, I disagree. We have unalienable rights. One of which is marriage. The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the law which includes making special rules for some, but not all. The easy solution here is to eliminate all special rules for married people. Do that and the entire "gay marriage" thing evaporates.

 

No, in the opinion of the SCOTUS.

which is irrelevant to marriage law in the US.

no argument there.

no. marriage is a legal institution. Without the legality, it's human pair bonding.

which means it wasn't a marriage. It was a nice ceremony.

nope

Without the legal recognition of a union, it isn't marriage.

 

Children have nothing to do with marriage and treating everyone equally should be a goal of our government.
With your logic freeing slaves was an expansion of big government.
Do you feel women voting and interracial marriage were also expansions, or is it limited to only gay people being treated equally?

 

You did whether you want to admit it or not.

No doubt you also believe it was an "EXPANSION of big government" to free the slaves and give women the vote. You are wrong about "regulating gay marriage". The truth is, like Loving v. Virginia, it was deregulated; meaning laws against it were unconstitutional per the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process protections and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Frankly, I don't give a flying fig about gays, blacks, you or anyone else. Leave all the Social Justice Warrior nonsense to the young and stupid idealistic. All I care about is me, mine and our rights. However, like Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous poem, I realize that the best way to protect my rights is to protect everyone else's rights. As the Preamble states, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". As Benjamin Franklin once noted, "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." In short, all of this means to me that if we don't fight for each other's rights, then it will only be a matter of time before we have no rights for ourselves.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
​

For those who don't know, Niemöller a prominent Lutheran German pastor who was outspoken enough against the Nazis that he spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in two of their concentration camps.

 

Silly argument when we are talking about the marriage laws that by design, discriminate between the married and unmarried

 

Everyone has the right to marry, that includes gay people.

 

Perhaps you missed in other of my posts that I am opposed to the expansion of government into the gay marriage business

No, it was government that created the laws to enslave people, to deny women the vote. Eliminating those laws was a reduction of government.

The Lovings weren't prosecuted for going to DC and getting married. They were prosecuted for living together as husband and wife in Virginia without a valid Virginia marriage. Back then a man and a woman were prohibited by law from engaging in sexual relations or cohabitating together without a marriage license. No such law existed for two men or two women.

 

Actually every state prohibits closely related couples from marrying. Gay marriage isn't about equality. Quite the opposite, inequality by design to win more "respect and dignity" for gays.

 

So now your argument against same sex marriage is that it doesn’t included incestual couples, I bet you were pissed when blacks gained the right to vote.

Do you actually hear your arguments?

Again, more equality was achieved - you and your sister (or dog) are free to make your case to SCOTUS though.