How big of an issue is same sex marriage to you?

In the 1960s, I went out in the streets to march for civil rights. Back then, it was for people of color and poor people. Today, the issue remains the same.

If you can discriminate against ONE American, you can discriminate against ANY American.

Stop trying to make this issue any more complicated than that.

There will always be self appointed keepers of the moral correctness. While they are free to express thair bigotry to the world, they do NOT have the right to preventany minority from having the same rights as the rest of us enjoy. At least, not in the United States of America.

If they feel that strongly about it, I suggest a one way ticket to Putin's Russia. Shirts can be checked at the deplaning area. Get a reciept, in case you decide to come home.

 

You're still rambling, still not writing carefully and you still don't get it.

 

Am I rambling or maybe you are just so too militant? I get it very well that is why I am not a supporter of same sex marriage.

Even the Mayor of Toronto has no right to say he will not attend gay pride parade or that the only flag that should be flown at the City Hall is the Canadian flag not pride flag and for that he was being threaten!!! Now I am rambling.

 

Yes. "The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." Men aren't the same as women. Only women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so.

 

Are you referring to the discrimination against unmarried Americans or do you just want to continue the discrimination on slightly different terms?

 

How many more times are you going to copy and past that?

 

Well I don't know or much care how things work up there. Not my problem . Doesn't sound like anything that would happen here. In any case, you must have better reasons than that to want to deny a basic right to people

- - - Updated - - -

I recommend Uganda for the religious right wing nuts

 

Excuse me! He was not forced to march or to fly the rainbow flag!! There goes your credibility! You guys sharing a crack pipe?

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...ng_to_take_part_in_world_pride_editorial.html

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/02/cr...rs-gay-pride-flag-removed-from-city-hall.html

 

"Marriage" should be exclusively handled by contract law as it is non-discriminatory and of course "parental rights and obligations" are dictated by contract. For example no woman has to assume guardianship of her child when it is born. She can simply walk out of the hospital after giving birth and has no responsbility under the law for the care and welfare of the infant. She voluntarily assumes that guardianship by removing the child and under the law she assumes a contractual obligation to provide for the welfare of the child. She also has enumerated contractual rights relative to the child based upon the law. It is all a matter of contract. In fact our laws enforce the Right of Property related to the child when there is a dissolution of the marriage as the woman has predominate "ownership rights" of the child and only in rare cases is "ownership" awarded to the father and that is based upon the contractual requirements of providing for the welfare of the child.

The real fact is that everything about "marriage" is a matter of contract and contract law is the only non-discriminatory law that ensures equal protection under the law for all individuals. All of our current marriage laws are discriminatory because they inherently impose invidious restrictions that infringe upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights as Person and that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

Then we are in agreement that the sexual relations between the individuals involved have nothing to do with "marriage" but did have virtually everything to do with the "prohititions agianst marriage" which is correct. We can throw the "procreation" argument out the window because that relates to the sexual relationship of the couple that really has nothing to do with "marriage law" as it is completely unrelated to any provisonal requirements for a couple to marry.

 

I do care in fact Canada care so much about the extremism happening in the USA. And of course you don't care how things work up here because you are promoting militancy not tolerance and acceptance you want to create an America for homosexuals and deny rights to none homosexuals that is why you chose to ignore the rights of polygamous adults or incestuous marriages between consenting adults.

As I said no basic rights are being deny men, women, gays, lesbians, blacks, brown, yellow or white people all are treated as American citizens. Gays and lesbians have the right to marry they are not deny that right as long as it is between man and a woman. What same sex militants want is to segregate gays and lesbians as not male and female or discriminate them as such.

That is why true freedom and rights must be protected or else we will have social disorder and chaos that would result on the collapse of society.

What you are insisting the "right" is their right to same sex marriage not social and civic rights which they all enjoy. As I said if it is the right to marry than you should also include all marital rights and not just your same sex but since it is obvious you only want to promote same sex and deny all other marital rights than that is discrimination.

I recommend Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia and North Korea for extremist none Christian and atheist anti gays and anti lesbians take your fight their if you can convince them then I am sure we here in the West will have no problem following suite.

Remember we are not the problem you and them are.

Answer to the question ; How big of an issue is same sex marriage to you?
It is a big issue and concern because it opens a whole can of worms that will lead to social disorder breakdown of secular morality forget about Christian morality if secularist can not maintain a standard of morality than society will break down.

 

The bottom line is marriage is about a man and a woman not same sex if same sex are to be consider then we should consider all marital relationship including polygamy same or not same sex, incestuous marriages as well.

 

You're a few days late and a penny short!

No, there are LAWS against polygamy (although those laws could be changed, since it doesn't seem to create any damage to anyone when polygamy is not "forced marriage" and all parties involved are consenting) and there are LAWS against incest (although marriage between first cousins IS PERMITTED AND RECOGNIZED in several states!)

There are NO LAW against homosexuality, at least not in this country!

And, in my opinion, marriage is NOT about "SEX," but about commitment and love.

 

Haven't you heard yet? The "WEST" has no problem with gay rights, and increasingly no problems with gay marriage recognition! The MINORITY of dinosaurs that still resist equal rights is shrinking by the WEEK!

So, sorry, but if you don't like it, either you're going to have to get use to it anyway (I don't like guns, and I don't like wars, but I have to live with both, because they are the law of this country!), OR you can move to one of those countries who are behind their time!

 

You are obviously correct. In fact, in most European countries, including in Belgium where my husband and I were married 42 years ago, the "religious ceremony" of marriage means NOTHING to the LAW. Priests and ministers are NEVER given the LEGAL right to conduct the legal part of a marriage. The one marriage that matters is the one in front of the civilian authority (la maison communale) and then, if the couples chooses to, a SECOND ceremony in a Church takes place. There can be MONTHS between the two ceremonies. Our marriage took place in two days. Many marriages take place the same day, within hours of each other, but in separate location and officiated by VERY different people.

This keeps things straight between the LAW and the RELIGION.

 

What nonsense. One cant contract away their parental obligations. And certainly cant contract away someone elses parental rights.

 

Equal rights would involve marriage for any two consenting adults. Gay marriage is Unequal rights by design.

 

There are no laws against incest in Rhode Island and yet they prohibit closely related couples from marrying. When they created "gay marriage" they even had to draft new laws to prohibit closely related couples of the same sex from marrying because the old laws only prohibited closely related marriages of the opposite sex.

???? Then why do you insist that marriage be reserved for heterosexual and homosexual couples? Two closely related people can love each other.

 

If I may ask a few questions because there is much about this post that confuses me and I'm a pretty smart dude:

Is Marriage now NOT a contract between participants? It seems to me that the only difference between marriage contracts and other contracts is that the government regulates the matter of who can enter into it with who and the provisions of it are standard rather than individually tailored to the parties.

Regarding a woman being able leave her child at the hospital.....are you saying that is how it should be, or is it how you think it is now.

When there is a dissolution of the marriage as the woman has predominate "ownership rights" of the child ? Sure the women most often gets custody but isn't that because she is generally still viewed as the primary caretaker? Are you saying that the law is written to give her primary consideration for custody?

You said "All of our current marriage laws are discriminatory because they inherently impose invidious restrictions...." What are you getting at here......? Prohibitions against consanguineous marriage.? I realize that there are a lot of interesting argument for and against it. However, the fact is that it is not on the radar and is not happening anytime soon. Those who are opposed to gay marriage know this and I believe that most people who talk about further expanding marriage do so with the nefarious intent of derailing the issue that is currently on the table....marriage equality as in equal to the rights of straights

 

I agree marriage is not only about sex it is about a man and a woman commitment and love.
What ever same sex people do behind close doors or in their private home is there business.
Laws against polygamy and incestuous relationship are about enforcing social moral standard same sex marriage falls under that standard too.

 

I know the WEST has no problem with gay rights it is the gay who has the problem. The West is tolerant even if forced through government regulation and laws to recognize and allow same sex to marry it is the same sex people and their supporters who wanted more not us. What they want that would lead to the take over of Western nation by extremist elements these extremist elements that will take away all rights.

I have been accepting and tolerant and it should not be me that needs to move but you for laws are made by those who are in charge and is always subject to change.

 

The parent(s) can choose to never accept the legal (contractual) guardianship of a child by simply not removing the infant from the hospital after birth in every legal jurisdiction of the United States. Parent(s) can also voluntarily grant legal guardianship of their child or children to another person. In fact my sister-in-law has legal guardianship of her grandson. The parents, her daughter and the father, were incapable of providing for the child and they "gave" legal guardianship to the grandmother. This was done under the legal authority of the Court at the request of the parents.

Try investigating the laws.

 

So. . .you do not believe that two men or two women can experience LOVE and want to COMMIT to each other?

How sad! So. . .you believe that love and commitment are based on a few inches of "skin" between one's legs? Is that it?

Very sad! And, NO polygamy laws are not based on "moral!" In fact, MARRIAGE was historically POLYGAMIST marriage (look at the Bible!).. . with a few concubine throw in for good measure!

And INCEST laws are NOT BASED on moral. . .they are based on (what is now no longer a definitive issue) the fact that two closely related people are much more likely to give birth to severely disabled children. NOTHING to do about "moral," everything to do about "survival of the fittest!" Which, today, is not so much of an issue, since closely related couple could choose to not procreate, and therefore it would remove that "unhealthy procreation" criteria.

Still. . .however you want to look at it, neither polygamy nor incest have ANYTHING to do with same sex marriage!

 

So. . .you believe you are "tolerant," but you cannot tolerate gay marriage?
That is an oxymoron!

- - - Updated - - -

If there are NO LAWS about incest, how can they prohibit it? DUH!

 

Separation of Church and State... an amazing concept.... why didn't we think of that.... Oh, but we did over 200 years ago.... so why don't we following that doctrine in the United States today seems to be the real question.