Opposing view points on sexuality.

Well, yes it is discriminatory, but traditional marriage serves a legitimate governmental purpose in improving the wellbeing of children, so does not violate discrimination laws. And of course eliminating all marriage laws and treating everyone equally would be equal treatment as opposed to discriminatory treatment by design. These days, equal protection of the law means one thing for members of a favored minority like homosexuals and something completely different for some single guy.

 

Strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Traditional marriage bans same sex couples without a governmental interest serve by the exclusion and is therefore unconstitutional.

 

What people do in the bedroom hurts no one, what he does hurts countless people?

 

There is no such thing as traditional marriage. It is a construct of the Catholic Church and is not supported by the Bible.

 

There is no such thing as traditional marriage, or at least what some of these people are arguing for isn't traditional marriage.

Marriage for thousands of years was a man claiming a woman as property. It wasn't until women were allowed to own property that marriage as we know it occurred. So don't fall for the smoke and mirrors arguments.

 

No one is arguing for women to be the property of men.

 

What a bunch of patronizing marlarky. The Bible has far more admonishments regarding straight folks' sexual deviancy than gay sex. What you are is a freaking condescending, self-righteous hypocrite with that statement right there. The Bible says that we are all sinners, not that straight sins are better than gay sins.

 

But there still are cultures that require a dowry. If that doesn't prove that woman are often considered as property I can't imagine what would.

 

Anybody arguing for traditional marriage is.

 

You are denying that sex is in the media?

 

That isn't our culture.

- - - Updated - - -

No I was promoting you for some examples.

 

Kim Kardashian.

 

Oh, I thought you meant gay sex. Okay, yeah. Sex sells and in a capitalist society it's impossible not to use it.

 

The millions of women who have become millionaires by marrying their husbands, and then divorcing them, would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

Only the right believes in denying and disparaging Individual Liberty in the name of the subjective value of morals of Religion without any morals test.

A person is a Person in our supreme law of the land and secular and temporal, Constitution.

 

It wasn't that way 200 years ago and approximately 2000-4000 years prior to that. Thus that situation occurs in modern marriage, traditionally women weren't able to own property.

 

I believe women should be able to recognize market based metrics. If guys are not wearing shining suits of armor or hiring the noble Art of the chastity belt maker, why should any rational person believe we are serious about a serious relationship with chivalry or any dependent relationship based on those "values"?

 

You ought to directthis specifically to people that claim to be arguing for "traditional marriage" when in fact they are arguing for modern marriage.

 

The Romans seem to have had more faith in capitalism and each spouse had to symbolically, buy each other out, to establish consideration criteria for a voluntary social transaction that may result in mutually beneficial trade.

 

Right, women couldn't own property, married or not. Had nothing to do with marriage.

 

Tax breaks and governmental entitlements have nothing to do with "liberty" and the only morality is the view that men and women should join together to provide and care for their children. As opposed to the alternative of doing so apart, or not at all.

 

Marriage usually involves some form of contract.

 

Except that it does. Basically women were like property when they were married.

Modern Marriage is the union of two equals, that isn't traditional marriage, sorry kiddo.

- - - Updated - - -

Being able to marry who ever I want regardless of your garbage had everything to do with liberty.

 

Thats nice. Tax breaks and governmental entitlements have nothing to do with "liberty" and the only morality is the view that men and women should join together to provide and care for their children. As opposed to the alternative of doing so apart, or not at all.

 

Actually they were like property before marriage as well. Has nothing to do with marriage.

No one claimed otherwise. Ill wait here while you scamper off after that strawman.

You can marry your dog if you like. No one will stop you. You just dont get the tax breaks and governmental entitlements. And like I said tax breaks and governmental entitlements have nothing to do with liberty.