Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Draw up contracts. That is all one has to do. And make sure to have them notarized.

 

that's an appeal to tradition which is a fallacy.

Why?

I disagree with your simile. It's like calling a Porsche a car and a pickup truck a car. They are both cars but they function differently.

Neither is any given traditional Marriage.

I'm rejecting your axiom. Which is that Marriage has to be identical it any other randomly selected marraige in order to be marraige.

I'm also rejecting your appeal to tradition.

I am happy to clear up any mistakes I have made.

All marraiges consist of different people.

My parents are married but they aren't the same people as my neighbors that are married.

I am perfectly clear on your claim. I just doubt it.

My marriage is classified as a marriage and it doesn't consist of one man and one woman.

I posit that they are being mother. Unless all being a mother requires is generic connection. That rather degrades the concept.

 

Yeah Marriage.

 

He seemed to have issues with his sexual outstation and for the suffering it caused him I'm sorry. I've been there.

your fixation in the way gay men have sex is not the least bit relevant. Further who cares what your brother said. But everybody is your brother.

 

That is your opinion. If Congress simply creates a law, that could overturn a ruling. And please, do not put words in my mouth. I did not say Dred Scott was overturned by courts. We went for several hundred years that homosexuals were not allowed to marry. A lot of mystery exists in the minds of Democrats who assume the court rules into law, brand new laws. When they legislate, those can be overturned.

In fact, only the unanimous rulings sound the bell that all is well with the SCOTUS.

As the following proves, of the 9 justices, merely 5 voted to support homosexuality. Well this leaves us with this quandary. 1 simple vote to ban homosexual marriage would have flipped it totally around.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overruled its prior decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had invoked as precedent.
Full case name: James Obergefell, et al., Petiti...
Related cases: Bourke v. Beshear, DeBoer v. ...
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Obergefell_v._Hodges

Baker v. Nelson

In October of that year, however, Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. announced that it would not hire a known homosexual. And, on October 15, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled — in a five-page opinion without dissent — that the Constitution does not protect “a fundamental right” for same-sex couples to get married. That ruling, in Baker v. Nelson, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Washington almost exactly a year later, with this order: “Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson, October 10, 1972, docket 71-1027).

 

You later responded to it with some anecdote about your brother.

 

The courts don't make laws, they make ruling on individual cases based on the testimony and Constitution. States then have to make or repeal laws based on being in acceptance with the ruling. States aren't monarchies.

 

Wow, without so much as having talked to my Brother, EVER, you make that accusation against him. As I said, Jim did want a child. And he understand the way nature works, he would need a woman to be the mother.

I resent any Democrat telling me I am their brother. See I was a very potent Democrat in my years prior to being 42. Anyway., I voted for Reagan and never wanted any Democrat to win once I saw what a great man he was.

My fixation? Surely you will cite the hundreds of posts from me showing you are accurate?

 

You amaze me when talking down to me. Thanks for trying to teach this 81 year old man, that has indeed studied not only law for decades but our own constitution. Even a 5-4 ruling shows dissent on the court. Does this mean the 4 who lose are lousy justices and do not understand the constitution nor how laws work?

 

In that case drop the claim I did not address your post.

 

Ad Hom attack

He seemed to have issues with his sexual outstation and for the suffering it caused him I'm sorry. I've been there. Ad Hom attack

 

My brother Jim's story is as valid as any commentary from all other homosexuals. I seldom mention him since he died in 1984 primarily due to drinking to excess. One thing he told me. He wanted a child. A boy or girl? That I am not sure of. While a male and female can use their sex organs to produce children, no such organ exists for the homosexual to produce them. Thus my Brother knew he would want to have sex with a woman. In fact he told me he did just that. Was it love of her? I do not recall him saying that. He had no other reason to marry a woman than to have a child with her. A thing he knew he never would have with the dozens or hundreds of men he used for homosexual purposes.

 

it isn't an accusation I understand it probably better than you do. I walked in those shoes.

the amount of suffering he went through because of this has been removed. It really served no purpose in the first place.

excuse me that was an error on my part. I meant to say not everybody is your brother. Meaning, I accept the things I cannot change, being able to be in a relationship with a woman. Not to being able to have a child with in my couple. But I also have the courage to change the things that I can. I can have a child, I can raise them. Sure it might mean their life is a little different, but that doesn't mean that's dysfunctional.

In that regard I am not like your brother.

You mentioned anal sex as though that is all there is to a same sex relationship.

All it takes is one post. the fact that that is on your mind without anybody putting it there means that it is something you are fixated on.

 

Don't be a snowflake.

That isn't an ad hominem. It is me sympathizing. It pains me to see other people suffer the way I suffered.

 

sure, and I didn't delegitimize it for what it is.

I empathized with it, I can empathize with you because I too have lost a brother.

I used to drink heavy too. It was short-lived because my family eventually accepted me and I had no more reason to drink.

that's not true and I'm sorry your brother didn't know that. First you could find a surrogate do what's called artificial insemination. And you could also adopt a child.

I feel bad for people who go through life not experiencing Joy because they don't know about their options or because they're holding back do tooth some tradition.

I'm sorry your brother couldn't find someone to love him exclusively.

But just because he didn't doesn't mean that nobody else can.

 

I think that's what I did in that responds to you. I said that you did address the post. I don't have the ability to go back and delete a post you'd have to talk to a moderator for that

 

well it wasn't meant to be condescending and I apologize that it came off that way.

Further the ruling in 2015 was based on the Constitution. If you have a grievance with this you have the right to have it redressed. Take your argument to the appellate courts.

I don't think anybody on your side of the argument is willing to do that so you don't want what you are sticking up for as badly as the other side wants what they want.

No it just means that they are 4 not 5. If you can convince 5 out of 4 justices otherwise then why don't you do it? Why isn't anyone taking this to the Supreme Court? If it's so blatant and easy to see in the Constitution then the argument should be easy.

 

I don't treat people equally just because I don't want to use a word meaning something completely different to describe same sex unions? Well then call me a racist, homophobic, misogynist bigot! You are something else. Just because I don't march in your parade.

 

I am excited to learn about your objective measure. I it subject to change at the popular whims of the culture? Or is it readily defined....eternal.

 

use whatever word you want to describe the same-sex marriage nobody cares.

 

Morality is based on how much harm you're doing to somebody else and how much necessity requires that harm

So if you want to cut someone open because do you have appendicitis and cutting them open would course harm them but it would allow you access to remove the inflamed appendix that amount of harm is acceptable and therefore not immoral.

If your morality is not based on this you do not have objective morality.

 

When you talk to me, think of me as an equal and not a chew toy.

I surmise those who have the funds to fight it are doing that.

Yes it means that 5 won and per the Democrats, 4 are sore losers.

 

It’s not an opinion. It’s constitutional law. The only way to overturn a Supreme Court ruling is via an amendment.

 

Well you agreed with me that Congress makes amendments. Not the Supreme court.

 

You said congress could pass a law. You were incorrect. Congress would have to propose an amendment, and then the states would have to ratify it.