Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

THEY COULD... but that wouldn't alter Marriage; which is the joining of One Man and One Woman... in the slightest. As such has absolutely nothing to DO with 'The State'.

It is however worth noting that it was only within that narrow and otherwise irrational scope wherein the addled notion that individuals of the same gender could possibly 'get married'.

Proving once again that the fastest path to chaos, calamity and catastrophe, is to simply accept a premise set upon the perverse reasoning of Left-think.

Nothing good can come from it... .

 

What is "couple"?

Can you define that?

(Reader, the definition of 'couple', will now be advanced sans any sense of the actual meaning of the word. And this is because to define the word accurately, is to undermine the popular premise- de- jour.

A couple is tht which has been joined...

Human physiology has been designed with two distinct, but otherwise complementing genders, each respectively and specifically design to JOIN WITH or couple with the other.

Two males can no more couple than two similar magnetic poles. They can be forced together, to produce the appearance of having joined, but remove the outside force and they will inevitably separate. But, in fairness to those similar poles, that is only because of THEIR INTRINSIC NATURE.)

 

Just because someone chooses not to exercise a right does not mean the right should not exist for them if they choose to use it. The SSM debate is legally settled so people need to get over it.

 

In regard to marriage contracts, the topic of this discussion, it is succinctly encapsulated in Ireland's popular resolution: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

Nearly all advanced Western nations with a Christian heritage have now moved beyond de iure gender discrimination; Islamic ones have yet to do so.

 

I don't know about the "gay rights movement." But this was never a "gay rights" issue anyway.

And as to "monogamish," there are plenty of straight "open marriages" and it's nobody's damn business except the people involved.

 

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

For there to BE a right, there must be a correlating responsibility which sustains the right. Where there is a Right to Marry, there is the responsibility to recognize the standard that defines marriage and to comport one's self, within the scope of that standard.

Given that Marriage is an extension of Human Physiology, wherein Nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders; each respectively and specifically designed to join with the other, it follows that those claiming the right to marry will do so respecting and adhering to the defining elements of such.

What the Homo-Cult is demanding is that Marriage be defined by the incentive which the culture designed to encourage such... which is a perversion of the definition... advanced by a cult that is comprised of a perversion of human sexuality.

Proving that the perversion of Homosexuality is merely a presentation of a perverse species of reasoning... and NOT a "choice", from an otherwise sound circumstance.

 

Sorry, but you've got it bass-ackwards. The citizen is not obliged to benefit the state as you claim. Rather, the state is obliged to benefit the citizen by virtue of defending said citizen's natural liberty.

 

And that's wonderful. It is of value to you to have your marriage "joined before God." So if I may ask, do you see any value in having your marriage "joined before government?"

 

I say it HERE! And it comes out ^THERE!^

So, to understand the position of the Cult, one needs to understand they believe that Human Physiology OKA: "Science", is a conspiracy of Christianity to discriminate against "gender".

When in FACT, Human physiology provides for two DISTINCT GENDERS... each respectively and SPECIFICALLY designed to JOIN WITH (marry...) the OTHER.

Everyone up to speed?

The Homo-lobby just needs you to set aside the soundly reasoned, objective study of the design of the construct of the human being... OKA: the science of human physiology, based upon their 'feelings' that such is a Christian conspiracy which fails to recognize their subjective needs are being superior to every other consideration.

LOL! Good stuff... .

 

You have chosen to fight a battle that you have already lost...and rightly so. Since the topic of the thread is gay couples choosing not to legally wed, I do not even understand why the topic of the legality and Constitutional right for them to marry should even being discussed here.

 

I see no value in 95% of what is considered 'government'... .

I do see a value however, in we; the people, promoting sound families... as a means to promote a sound culture.

Now where there is a government, and where that government has been infected by Left-think, thus is confiscating inordinate sums of the product of labor from the individuals comprising the culture... It follows that relieving people who form sound families of some level of that which the government would otherwise confiscate... is one way of doing that.

Of course, where the same policy is advanced to sexual deviants, degenerates and the debauched... assembled in unsound, unsustainable groups... naturally does the opposite, undermining cultural viability.

 

Who am I to judge?

 

I haven't lost a battle. My position rests in immutable natural principle.

If you were engaging my battle, you would not be deflecting from that principle and toward legalities which ignored such.

Natural Laws are not effected by popular whimsy... no one escapes the effect of such. You feel that because you're free to ignore natural law, that you're immune from the consequences of that choice. Such is the nature of children and fools.

There's a reason that despite being present since the beginning of Human history, homosexuality has been rejected.

IF as you claim that such is innocuous, benign and otherwise perfectly normal, with no potential to injure the human culture... then Homosexuality would be widely accepted in all cultures, inculcated and otherwise intrinsic; intertwined in all religion and every aspect of human endeavor.

Yet... Homosexuals have spent 99.999999999999~% of human history IN THE CLOSET and BANNED ACROSS THE BOARD.

Why is that?

Take some time and point to any culture that long ago normalized homosexuality and which has since experienced sustained viability... .

I can point ya toward the ancient Greeks, Romans, Samurai... all gone. With their end having come in the wake of those cultures having set aside sound reason... and embraced deviant reasoning.

But hey... don't let me prejudice your own study... go head and do the research and bring back to the board, the long sustained culture's which embraced homosexuality and lived to tell about it.

 

I don't know who ya are.

I just know that where one sets aside sound judgment,nature requires that one sets aside one's viability.

So, if you're a sound human being, you judge... .

If you're not, ya don't... and ya won't be here long enough to matter.

Some folks refer to it as evolution... wherein the nature culls the less capable from the gene pool, so as to improve the potential for the species to survive.

 

If homosexuals were denied the legal right to wed, not one of them would become heterosexual because of it...so, homosexuality and gay couples would still exist. That being said, why are you so upset by the private lives of others? None of your business and you and others griping about the civil rights of other citizens is futile and always will be. Do you actually believe that homosexual relationships started when the SCOTUS settled the legal issue?

Back on topic...gays get to choose who and when to marry or not, the same as hetero couples...deal with it.

 

this argument is demolished by the fact procreation is not now, nor ever has been a requirement in order to marry. Only way this could constitutionally work is if you banned all heterosexual couples who couldn't procreate.

- - - Updated - - -

marriage is whatever society says it is. at one time, it was one man and one woman of the same race. that has changed. It has changed again in that it is no longer just one man and one woman.

Your marriage isn't in the slightest way affected by 2 men or 2 women marrying.

 

Homosexuals were not denied the right to marry. They, like EVERYONE ELSE, were simply held to the natural standard, defining marriage.

Nothing I've said even speaks to the private lives of anyone. My argument is with Public Policy.

LOL! That is not just false, the suggestion that public policy is not the business of members of the public, is hysterically false.

And with that said... let's return to the argument from which you deflected...

Natural Laws are not effected by popular whimsy... no one escapes the effect of such. You feel that because you're free to ignore natural law, that you're immune from the consequences of that choice. Such is the nature of children and fools.

There's a reason that despite being present since the beginning of Human history, homosexuality has been rejected.

IF as you claim that such is innocuous, benign and otherwise perfectly normal, with no potential to injure the human culture... then Homosexuality would be widely accepted in all cultures, inculcated and otherwise intrinsic; intertwined in all religion and every aspect of human endeavor.

Yet... Homosexuals have spent 99.999999999999~% of human history IN THE CLOSET and BANNED ACROSS THE BOARD.

Why is that? ... .

 

this is demonstrably incorrect.

 

Noted you did not answer my question. Congratulations on 36 years of marriage, however.

 

I suppose for lots of reasons. Some people are threatened by their own feelings and lash out at others that are openly expressing theirs and sad to realize that there are people such as yourself that feel the need to ostracize others whose business in none of yours. Pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hateful and petty, IMO.

 

You're conflating popular whimsy with sustainable practices set into play by a viable species.

Two men cannot marry... as nature defines Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And nature doesn't give a dam' about your subjective needs.

If you accept nature's law... you benefit from the consequences of having done so.

If you reject nature's law, you will suffer the consequences of having done so.

Those are the only two options you have... and you have no say in it, at all. You're free to accept it, or reject it. Nature doesn't care which way ya go. As the laws are already set and they're not being changed.

 

humans define marriage. there is nothing natural about a marriage contract.

 

no, I'm explaining how marriage is and has always been defined.

demonstrably incorrect, as thousand upon thousand of men have married other men.

nature doesn't define marriage. it's a purely human construct.

nor does it give a damn about yours. it doesn't give a damn about anything actually, as it has no power to direct anything.

nature doesn't have any laws. laws are man made and enforced by society.

there aren't any consequences for rejecting something that doesn't exist.

clearly not.

uh, of course I do.

laws change on a frequent basis.

 

Seriously?

Ya know what people are threatened by? That which brings them injury...

Now... > IF < Homosexuality is innocuous, benign and otherwise perfectly normal, with no potential to injure the human culture... Where did the 'injury to people' come from which produced the fear of such?

You claim that homosexuality is PRIVATE BEHAVIOR.

Yet... this discussion has NOTHING to do with Private Behavior and is otherwise focused ENTIRELY upon public policy.

Now... has it occurred to you, that your desires have altered public policy... Does public policy represent the potential to injure others?

How about public policy which comes about by those who do not even realize that they're speaking of Public Policy? Do ya 'feel' that there's any chance that a person could be injured by that sort of public policy?

Now... let's assume for the sake of argument, that such does present the potential for harm... and that given sufficient time, that which possesses the potential injure someone, will inevitably so injure one.

Do ya feel that there's any chance that if that is repeated sufficient times that, it could be used as the basis for a 'rule'?

 

You still don't' get it, do you?

It is not about HAVING to get married, now that marriage is legal for EVERY consenting adult couples. . .it is about HAVING THE RIGHT to make the decision to marry or not marry!

Marriage has been in decline among young people for a couple of decades now. . .Out of 31 "young" couples (between the age of 21 and 35) in my family, ALL heterosexuals, only 6 are married, and 3 used to be married.

But today, EVERYONE has the same right to marry or not to marry!

And that is a good thing!