Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

I wouldn't call you illiterate. Simply uneducated.

 

I think he is trying to say that the 14th doesn't mention religion as one of the things you cannot discriminate on.

 

That's because you haven't got a clue about the Constitution. Hell, that guy from Mommy Erf's nether regions could probably teach you a thing or two, were you educable.

 

Civil unions and even marriage like contracts were banned in numerous states.
This was never about the word marriage until the anti-gay lobby lost, then suddenly it became “why do you have to steal our word / why are civil unions not enough”

 

That's annoyingly persnickety. So my irritation is justified

 

So you have come out of the closet but you aren't married. You can pretend you are a unicorn.....doesn't make it so.

 

That is an interesting bit of information there Maquiscat..... Perhaps we will have to differentiate by calling real marriages , Covenant Marriages. In many states it is a binding marriage only between one man, one women, and the Church.

 

In every single state, it is also between 2 men or 2 women.

 

but a Covenant Marriage is not. It is legal and binding. I've had a Covenant Marriage. It is between one man and one women period. You feel excluded? Want to diminish that Institution too? Good luck!

 

I was never in the closet and have no desire to marry.

Millions of same sex couples are still married no matter how many times you say it isn’t so.

 

Except churches are starting to marry same sex couples, so looks like you will be losing there also.

 

Having no relevance to marriage today in the US.

 

There is only 1 type of marriage in the US, and that is legal marriage. Same sex couples and opposite sex couples are identically married. This is true in all 50 states. You can either accept it and move on, or continue to bash your head against the wall. Same sex couples will go right on marrying regardless of how you feel about it.

 

So then the word "religion" should be in it then, right? I'm saying that it's not.

 

"Opponents of the repeal argued that it would eliminate protections from oral and anal sexual assault." Any idea how it relates to sexual assault?

 

If a state made a new law tomorrow which outlawed same sex marriage it WOULD be unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court, right?

 

And when did religious marriage end?

 

I'll rephrase: the basic principle for allowing same sex marriage is that due to a character trait (homosexuality), the only way that homosexuals can enter into a genuine, attraction based marriage recognised by the law, is to marry a member of the same sex, so therefore they shouldn't be discriminated against.

You mean that it's not the principle by which a BAN on consanguinous marriages is unconstitutional? You seem to have made the same mistake that I made.

What are the reasons to prohibit consanguinous breeding and how can it be prohibited?

Well what others reasons are there to seek ANY legal marriage other than the legal benefits?

When would an adult be deemed to be incapable of providing informed consent?

 

Yeah, I have no choice.

 

Do you think that Congress had the Constitutional authority to make that legislation?

 

Well what an "ACTUAL" marriage is, is subjective. I wouldn't call legal same sex marriage OR legal traditional marriage ACTUAL marriage either, but I prefer to use the term TRUE marriage. The point is that nobody in this thread as far as I know, is saying that religious marriage is relevant to the law.

 

LOL. Well in order for the right to be denied, a man would have to make a request! And I'd be worried if any man did so!

 

Why does the word religion have to be in it?

 

Well what is the relevant section?

 

You seem to think that all gay people would have to do is snap their fingers, name it something else, and everything would be peachy. Any idea on how many court battles and how much money they had to spend to get their cases heard in court? Tell you what - YOU pay for everything, hire the lawyers, spend twenty years of your life trying to get each state to agree to what you think it SHOULD be - and then we'll talk.

No? Didn't think so.