Gay marriage is adult's pretending

Good point!
Relationship between man and woman is fundamentally different from any othvr types of relationships, because sexual activity of heterosexual couples is a public issue. Since it is a public issue it requires government intrusion. That is why we have numerous laws that impose serious responsibility on the relationship between man and woman. Marriage is a positive way to regulate such relationship.
Homosexual activity strictly private matter between two people so it does not need to be regulated by the government.
In that sense gay marriage is a special rights for gays.

 

This might make sense on some distant planet or alternate universe.

 

Or like in Maryland and Maine where it was accepted by popular vote.

 

Informal slang has had an influence on most language (if not all).

You are using a dictionary that hasn't been updated since before 1843, produced by a man who self-admittedly was doing so to alter the English language. And your basis for discounting current and scholarly resources is that your opinion of things not even written in his book is more reliable than definitions provided by the most widely recognized and comprehensive language resource of our time.

In short, your response is "because I said so." That is not a compelling argument.





​

 

If someone receives a benefits for fun while I have to receive the same benefits for responsibility for the relationship with a woman, it is clear case that government punishes me.
It is the same way as if you would pay retirement benefits to young people because those young people "feel old".
It is clear harm, you take money from me and pay it to someone who has nothing to do with marriage institution.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, and that universe is limited only in one's person brain substance.

 

You are mistaken. No one is proposing taking money from you.




​

 

Bad point.

How is a marriage of man to woman who already has two kids different from a marriage of a lesbian mom who has two kids to her partner? In the
eyes of the state and law there would be no difference.

The only special right I see is this self-appointed special right some religious people to hoist themselves on a cross and play victim over this issue.
It's pathetic.

 

Homosexual relationship is a private matter, it has nothing to do with me, however supreme court established a special right for gays, i.e. made their relationship public. It means gays take my money by force and use those money for personal amusement.

- - - Updated - - -

Those two kids are result of heterosexual relationship. Homosexual relationship has nothing to do with the government.
Gay marriage is a government handout to gay couples, to make them feel good.

 

No, that isn't self-evident, that is a claim requiring proof and logic.

Webster's 1828 Edition

"SELF-EV'IDENT, adjective Evident without proof or reasoning; that produces certainty or clear conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind; as a self-evident propostion or truth. That two and three make five, is self-evident."

A claim casts doubt as to the veracity of the claimant. That a bump on the head would hurt only becomes self-evident after the first time one receives a bump. Prior to that it requires proof or reasoning.

 

Marriage is a private matter. Your marriage has nothing to do with Joe's, and Joe's has nothing to do with you. No is proposing taking money from either of you, for either of your amusement.

The law does intrude into our private lives. Having the law recognize both marriages simply allows the law to intrude with less harm, to cause less disruption, of those private relationships.






​

 

Your post made no sense and if it made sense to you, maybe you should work on making it understandable to others since you are posting on a public forum.

 

Married heterosexual couples receive the same benefits, so that would spell a fail for your "special rights" argument.

 

Honestly, if you're down to arguing about what "is" means in the dictionary - it's time to move on.
In the United States, marriage applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples. That is the law. Get used to it.

 

That two and three make five, is self-evident ... without the logic of addition?

That hitting a person produces injury is not self-evident. That a person who hits another person is capable of violence is self-evident. Evidence of injury is not contained within the act but evidence of capability is contained in that bare presentation.






​

 

Not really but then to understand would be to comprehend "injury".

And by the way, that would only be your opinion which seems to be lacking by your own assertion of reality. You have denied critical details, first that formed the concept of "middle class" and then that were paramount in the class destruction. Furthermore, you ignore the key concepts that would restore the "middle class" in favor of the very thing that was paramount in it's destruction.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance ---- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -- Herbert Spencer'

"It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power. -- Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy the State, 1935.

 

Given that he made it perfectly clear that he believed he understood it, do you really imagine any doubt could possibly be resolved in your favor?

Then point to the evidence within his claim, which he held to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

 

I'm not and I didn't. I don't, I don't and I'm not.

It doesn't, it doesn't and it doesn't. Actually true but then returning to a falsehood.

True, to a degree you and the vast majority fail to comprehend.

Again with the you, your not my slave. I have not been harmed and can't be harmed by those actions but others can and are. Your whole thing here is to keep ignoring the issue and to try and instill a personal action.

 

You would have to look at the truths Thomas Jefferson said he believed were self-evident, the ones he named in the declaration of independence. To look at those truths and determine if we both agree with his opinion that they are self-evident would be an involved discussion. It certainly was in his time.

The first step would be finding his expression of the truths he named. I am not interested in exploring that topic with you, but I encourage you to do so. It is a worthwhile exploration.




​

 

*shrug* If you are not a U.S. citizen, then your opinion of U.S. law has no significance. You don't get a vote.





​

 

There was plenty of history behind the truths our founders claimed as self evident.

Our government was one in a progression of secular advances that were the result of reason.

 

Ah, a true statement that informal slang thing. It has had a very large influence on modern language, not for the better mind you but then it is in keeping with the times and the downgrading of the intellect. And even though I think Trump is a blowheart born on third base thinking he hit a triple, I do enjoy listening to him talk, no political correctness there.

And there you go again passing judgement on that which you have demonstrated you little understand. From your desertion to this point it would seem that unless something is handed to you in a silver frame, it becomes a foreign object that can't be understood. Maybe that is why the current dictionaries set so well with you, all meted out in neat fashion, never to question. But I accept your analogy of widely recognized and comprehensive resource for the times used by the indoctrinated masses of the time as good little citizens.

And again, your slave mentality looking for some sort of master as if the state where not enough. Well don't look here as I am not interested in slaves.

 

Cruz gently BBQ's Lesbian Activist:

Not having an answer, she deflected

The gentle Cruz missle

Quiet proud gentle intelligent effective

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...while_grilling_pork_and_lesbian_activist.html

 

Oh I get a vote but not as you imagine. I refuse to diminish myself to become a qualified elector when Elector is so much more powerful. And again you offer opinions on that to which you are unqualified as the law and courts are my significance. Before the law you demand but I command. Before the law, I stand undiminished, you understand and are represented.

Your vote only counts when you are part of the majority, mine counts in spite of a majority. For you this marriage thing is to beg a perceived authority for a grant of privilege. Mine is to remind the servant of his place and his oath to uphold that place.

Mine is a world that only a very small percentage of the people comprehend and the rest can little perceive much less comprehend. Most, like yourself, huff and puff and deny it's very existence. But in the 1770s, it was fully understood by the majority.

 

Right, and in case of homosexual couple law intrudes for sole purpose to hand out benefits for homosxual sex. In case of hetersexual couples law intrudes for the purpose to regulate and impose responsibility .
As you can see there are totally different purposes of providing 1000s of benefits.

 

What part you do not understand.
1. homosexual and heterosexual relationship are two different things.
2. one is public (heterosexual) and one is private (homosexual).
3. if it is public then it has an effect on everyone, i.e. it needs to be regulated.
4. marriage is part of regulation of heterosexual activity.
5. if you provide marriage benefit to homosexual couples you pay benefits for private activity that has no effect on the society