Gay marriage opponents need smarter arguments

you just threw in another reason to support SSM heterosexual marriage exists. Denying a part of society a right shared by another part is constitutionally wrong. Nowhere does it say marriage must have a potential for offspring. What about those that have had ovaries removed, or testicles removed? Are they not allowed to get married, even heterosexual ones, since no offspring will occur?

 

Not according to every court case that has only created a constitutional right for gays to marry. And not according to the title of the thread.

 

Here you go:

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

Whether or not the religions are dead does not change the fact that you cannot discriminate based on what a majority does or prefers. Homosexual behavior has been documented in dozens, if not hundreds of species, thus the entire argument that it is not natural is also bogus, else you wouldn't see penguins do it.

 

conservatives do too.

 

procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. that is the direct contradiction and refutation of your statement.

- - - Updated - - -

nor is it a valid justification for excluding same sex couples from marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

no court has created "gay marriage". not one. every state which legalized same sex marriage, a straight man can marry another man. orientation is entirely irrelevant.

 

I would like to know what court has established a right to "Gay Marriage" vs. same sex marriage. I would ask him to produce it but I don't waste my time with him anymore. He'll just come up with some bull

 

Gay marriage should be banned because if it's allowed I might marry my toaster.

 

PS regardless of the wording of a ruling or statute, any two people of the same sex would be able to amble down to city hall and get a marriage license. There will be no questions about sexual orientation, and no test. They wont be asked to perform a sex act with each other as proof of gayness. As I said, gays will not have a special right, anyone can marry someone of the same sex.

 

If opponents of Gay Marriage insist on using the faith defense then the government must get out of marriage as a religious matter under the separation of church and state principle, I would just leave this matter to civil law contracts made up by the parties involved. No government recognitions save if they have a contract with powers of say to make medical decisions that is followed.

 

Once more, any MEAT on that "litigation, taxation, chaos" parade of IMAGINARY horrors groundless claim? Didn't think so. Leftist hypocrisy never ceases. We've had mountains and seas of added increased regulation causing... litigation, taxation, chaos... in the nanny state for decades. ACA is merely one recent example. Yet all, even mild, deregulatory statute-sunsetting advocacy seeking to go the other way is instantly dismissed as "libertarian pipedreams" with no grounding whatsoever or some asinine mumble about "laissez faire failures " Either that or anything seeking to prune the monstrous academy-bureaucracy-media-dependence trough is equated to "anarchy."

Your appeal to tyranny of the majority is silly as well. Who cares whether ending discrimination would be popular with the majority? hell it usually is.

 

..................................................................................................................................
Your ideological dogma fails to persuade practical, mainstream Americans. (Those imaginary "Liberals!" that fester in the turbulent hat racks of TPs are quite irrelevant.)

The pragmatic approach requires that what actually works is the way to go, and the most advanced nations on earth have achieved their success by regulated capitalism with a healthy social welfare component - including far more cost efficient universal healthcare.

If you have an alternative, extant paradigm you prefer, name it. - And no airy-fairy, fictitious nations, a real one. please.

 

Don't stick your private parts in it....ouch!!

 

Equlity would require ending all discrimination. Not just that which bothers the gays because they complain the loudest.

 

Not a thing there that contradicts a thing I said.

 

Then get a new seeing-eye dog. It proves that there are religions that are tolerant of same-sex marriages, thus your assertion that ALL religions use marriage for procreation is bullcrap.

 

What other couples do not enjoy equality in marriage?

Two adults entering into such a legal contract is not prohibited based upon race since Loving v. Virginia, nor by religion, nor ethnicity, and same-sex couples in advanced societies do not need to advocate for equality anymore, if it is their and most Americans' supporting it that upsets you.

 

here is a tuff one:

lets have a vote

lol

let everyone vote a get 0 gay marry

let small clique of politicians decide agaisnt the wishes of the population

might get gay marry

lol

demcorats are not for democracy!

 

All of them that created a right to gay marriage. From the most recent Virginia decision.


Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships. Such relationships are created *23 through the exercise of sacred, personal choices—choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.....
In Windsor, our Constitution was invoked to protect the individual rights of gay and lesbian citizens, and the propriety of such protection led to upholding state law against conflicting federal law....
The proposal disregards the gravity of the ongoing significant harm being inflicted upon Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens. .....
Gay and lesbian couples are as capable as other couples of raising well-adjusted children......
The laws at issue target a subset (gay and lesbian individuals) who are similarly situated to Virginia’s heterosexual individuals, and deprive that subset of the opportunity to marry....
The goal and the result of this legislation is to deprive Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens of the opportunity and right to choose to celebrate, in marriage, a loving, rewarding, monogamous relationship with a partner to whom they are committed for life......
The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry.....

 

Any couple denied the right to marriage. Every state with gay marriage prohibits two people closely related from marrying. Rhode Island even had to enact new legislation to prohibit closely related couples of the same sex from marrying, when they made gay marriage legal, because the laws against incestuous marriage, only prohibited closely related marriage between people of the opposite sex.

 

You knew that was retarded when you posted it didn't you?

 

Nope. All that happened was the gender restriction was removed. Which you know, because it's been pointed out to you ad nauseum

 

If you feel that you can get most Americans to endorse incestuous marriages as they have same-sex marriages, go for it, but I don't see many couples engaged in incestuous relationships indicating that they wish to marry like other couples.

 

Im not making an argument based upon popularity and am instead making one on the basis of Constitutional equal protection law.

 

Prog Patriot wrote:

could that be even more retarded - no marriage = no divorce!

custody of children? lol, WTF - gays cannot produce them anyway

 

So you are a fan of Karl Marx then? - if not, why not?


.

sorry, but where is that right for single people again?