Fifth consecutive poll shows national majority support for same-sex marriage

not that insurance has any relevance in any way to the topic, but no law encourages liability insurance for owning a car.

 

They do in the last 3 states I have lived in. And it was an analogy, you wouldn't understand.

 

No state requires liability insurance for OWNING a car. and it's an idiotic and irrelevant analogy

 

I didnt claim the state "requires" anything. I'll wait here while you run down that strawman rabbit.

 

whine and cry strawman when your idiotic arguments get destroyed.

no state "encourages" liability insurance for OWNING a car either.

 

My argument still stands. Your silly strawmen have no effect upon it. Your baseless denials even less so.

 

you argument is idiotic and has been refuted.

not my strawman. you made the idiotic argument. i simply refuted it. not a single state requires or encourages liability insurance for OWNING a car.

 

State of Texas does. The OWNER of the car, required each year to register his car, won't be allowed to do so unless he shows proof of insurance. Same in Missouri and Illinois back in the 80s

 

source?

 

It was an extremely poor/irrelevant one. Nice condescending tone though!

 

Well the law often draws, as you pointed out "bright lines". Here's one: the lower age limit of sex and indeed MARRIAGE. Despite the fact that some people younger than 18 or 16 may be able to understand the legal consequences of marriage, they are nevertheless prevented from doing so because the law simply opts to draw a line at that age - obviously varying from state to state. So, since the vast, vast majority of elderly women (70 and over) are unable to procreate, would it not make sense to draw a "bright line" and impose an UPPER age limit so that couples seeking to wed who aren't able to produce offspring with one another are prevented from unnecessarily (according to your logic and beliefs on marriage) accessing thousands of state and federal rights? This is entirely within the states power. Also, a requirement to disclose medical information such as infertility would be constitutionally permissible in the same way requirements to disclose medical information relevant to being insured to drive a car are (blindness, heart conditions, ect..). So there are many things the state could do to limit marriage to those who can procreate rather than those who simply have sex a certain way, yet they are NOWHERE to be found in any law in any of the 50 states.

So our point is that there is no demonstrable aspect of marriage law showing that procreation is the ONLY state interest, and given that a couple could approach a registrar and admit that they are either too old or medically infertile and still be awarded with thousands of rights for NO OTHER REASON than their sexualities/genders, then we are left with a very clear indication that it amounts to a completely unfair, unconstitutional system that can be rightly reformed by simply allowing identically situated couples (in terms of procreation) to marry. To say that current law is constitutional while adding same-sex couples into the mix of eligible parties would be, is frankly insane and calls into question your understanding of law.

 

One step further: If the goal of marriage is to channel procreative sexuality into an institution that promotes a stable environment for raising children, then we can draw a bright line that discontinues a marriage once any children reach adulthood and: 1) the female reaches a non-procreative age 2) if one of the pair undertakes a procedure to prevent further impregnation. We could also refuse the sale of contraception to married persons of a procreative age. Absolutely no reason for them to need contraception if they are married, what with procreation being the reason for marriage to exist.

Now back to reality: Marriage is contractual in nature. This is exemplified by the vows that people commonly take during a wedding ceremony. That contract is about a lot more than procreation.

I suppose one can make the claim that any couple could enter into a contract encompassing these same promises without the need for government to recognize it as a marriage, and then make the additional claim that government recognition of a marriage is about procreation. But the claim doesn't stand up under analysis because the laws governing marriage don't draw bright lines that link marriage to procreation, as per the observations already made.

No promise required to procreate within a certain time frame on penalty of having the marriage's recognition revoked.

Nothing in the law to end a marriage when the last child reaches adulthood.

Nothing in the law to end a marriage after a certain period of time without further procreation by the couple.

No denial of marriage recognition to people whose age renders them incapable of procreation.

No revocation of marriage when one member of the couple becomes sterilized.

Clearly, government recognition of marriage is not about procreation, at least not exclusively or mainly about procreation. It is about the economic and social union of a couple contracting together in marriage - whether or not they intend to procreate, whether or not they actually procreate, and whether or not they are able to procreate. And that being the case, there is zero reason to use procreation as an excuse to discriminate against same-sex couples.

 

Well, when if I put you into a septic tank for a day or tow - I will tell you the same: you don't have to suffer, unless you want to. You choose to be bothered sitting in a septic tank.
Ha-ha-ha!

I don't care who is not bothered, like you stating it's 75%(?). I am not a crowd or cattle. I don't care, do you want to marry, should you be allowed or not. What I want - I want to be left alone by mass media and by laws, forcing me to be around you.

Persecuted? OMG!!! If I don't want to be around you, I am persecuting you?! Sorry man. This is the way I want to live - away from sexual perverts. So, stop this forced integration terror, forcing me to tolerate people like you.

Get lost. I am no longer taking to you. You like most of you, just trying to mess with me, playing some idiotic games.

And as usual, I am not responding to trolling robot "Jonny-C".

 

dixon76710, I admire your patience! Seems like they never stop and pretend like they don't understand. They hope to break your will and you will give up.
God bless you! Let the force to be with you!

 

Your comparing living near a gay couple to living in a sewer is offensive and stupid.

Maybe you need to realize that you are a dinosaur and you'll go the way of dinosaur. . .anyone with such deep prejudice can't survive into the future. ..

But maybe if you consider that you may have a totally WRONG idea of "gay couples" due to the ridiculous stereotypes propagated by red necks and ignoramus and encouraged by the hyper religious zealots, you might realize that you may have been living next to a gay couple for years, and that some of your best buddies, your drinking beer buddies, or your Nascar crowd buddies, or your hunting buddies might have been in love for years right under your eyes. . .and that they no longer have to hide.

Faulty stereotypes of gay couples as "effeminate men" or "macho women" have played for too long on public opinion, delaying the realization that gay couples exists in all shapes and forms, beautiful and ugly, good and bad, and in all social classes and skin color.

It is time to get blow those stereotype sky high, and this picture might help!

 

It's not unnecessarily. Encouraging ALL heterosexual couples to marry, reduces the number of single mothers on their own providing for their children. Encouraging any other type of couple does not.

And making marriage even more over inclusive by extending marriage to gays, won't correct the problem you complain of. Makes it even worse.

 

It is fairly apparent that there would be benefits, along with certain other issues, that would come with promoting marriage between homosexual people.

The notion that overall good will not come of it, doesn't make sense. After all, no one is out to redefine heterosexual marriage or diminish the rights or benefits of any marriage. All that is being pursued is greater liberties and benefits for ALL.

I really am interested to hear what comes of the Supreme Court's deliberations. (June/July can't get here fast enough.)

 

"apparent"??? I can't think of a single one. Noticed you took the time to write three paragraphs and couldn't list even one such benefit

 

Of course, and that is because of your particular mindset. I'm sure there are more than a few people who cannot see better than you might.

 

What makes you believe/think others should "stop" or are 'pretending'?

You are standing relatively far from reality if you think that people will not defend their humanity.

 

Amen to the above!!

 

"humanity"???? The tax breaks and governmental entitlements you want have nothing to do with humanity

 

Yes. Those who seek to dehumanize homosexual people, essentially FORCE us to stand up and oppose them (actively so).

I don't expect you to understand or agree with that; you've shown evidence that you probably never will.

 

Do you think one of those people might ba able to actually reveal one of those benefits?

 

Help me understand? How about you copy and paste the post of mine you think dehumanizes you or homosexuals