Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Not as I interpret it. Solomon, Jacob and many others are held up as prime examples of behaviors and such and they were all polygamists.

 

Doesn't mean that God recognised them as marriages. Genesis is most clear on what marriage is.

 

Again we are down to interpretation, which really ends up taking us down another thread. If you want to follow this specific line, start the thread and link it. But this is moving off topic as far as how people interpret their religion and religious text.

 

14th Amendment Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

At issue is if a single state allows same sex marriage all other states must also recognize that marriage.

See also the due process clause as well as the equal rights clause.

 

Just as accepting counterfeit cash into the money supply diminishes the value of real money, accepting a wider variety of unions as legitimate marriages diminishes the value of actual marriages.

 

Well passing off counterfeit currency as real currency is stealing. So you are depriving anybody you trade with of the value of the money.

I don't see how that translates to marriage. How is someone's marriage diminished by two people of the same sex being married?

 

Well, smack me silly. I was wrong about this. I had an oversight of that particular section of the Constitution. I thus retract my argumentation that DOMA was unconstitutional.

I still hold that the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell was unconstitutional, and agree with the dissenting opinion in that case. I believe this was your take on that case as well.

 

States were not denying marriages to anyone. Gay people had every right to enter into a marriage. They simply chose not to.

 

Like black people did with anti-miscegenation laws?
Everyone could marry, just had to be the same race — if they didn’t they were choosing not to...
The state wasn’t denying them anything...

And before you respond with some combination of letters that is the exact same example.

It’s amazing the same line of reasoning that was used against blacks and women are now being used against gay people.

 

If DOMA was constitutional so was Obergefell.

 

Actually the value of real money relies solely on real money. The introduction of fake money, serves only as a vehicle to theft, but does not diminish real money's value. Only the introduction of excessive amounts of real money as a whole, will diminish the value of each individual within. So similarly, an increase in OSM, by the logic you're giving, will decrease the value of other OSM's, with no effect on SSM, much like a change in the value of the dollar, will not alter the value of the pound, or the franc.

However, introduce of more does not always result in a lowering of value of the rest, especially where variants of the same are concerned. Adding a variety of different flowers, all of them being flowers nonetheless, can increase the values of the whole, instead of decreasing. So in this parallel, having other types of marriage increases the overall value of the entirety.

Finally, we have to note that value is actually subjective. An object that is $5 in cost, might be valued at $10 by one person, while another values it at $1 or less. Some people value family over friends, while others value friends over family, and still other value solitude. You concept of OSM being devalued by the existence of SSM, is a subjective one, albeit shared by many, but also not shared by many others.

 

DOMA was constitutional, as was pointed out to me, via my oversight of Article 4 Section 1.

Obergefell has nothing to do with Article 4 Section 1. Obergefell attempts to claim that gays were being denied access to marriage that straight people had access to (14th Amendment). That was not the case. Nothing was stopping gays from marrying. They quite literally just chose not to marry. This SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional.

Loving v Virginia, on the other hand, was a completely constitutional SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS got it right on that one. The 14th Amendment in that case WAS being violated, since people wishing to marry interracially did not have the same access to marriage that people wishing to marry the same race had. They were quite literally barred from doing so, instead of simply choosing not to do so.

 

Blacks had the same rights to marriage that whites had — none of them could marry the opposite race. They just chose not to...

How is that any different than what you are now arguing?

 

Not the same line of reasoning.

In the one case, interracial couples WERE being legally banned from marrying. They didn't have the same access to marriage that same-race couples had.

In the other case, gays were NOT being legally banned from marrying. They had the same access to marriage, but chose not to access it due to their particular attractions.

 

Certain race combinations were denied the right to marry.

Gay people were not denied that right.

 

Blacks had the same right to marry that whites had — they both could not marry someone of the opposite race.
Same race couples could marry, opposite race couples could not. (Note the words underlined are interchangeable in the statement below.

That is the exact same argument put fourth with anti miscegenation laws. The maps are even kind of similar.
Opposite sex couples could marry, same sex couples could not.

 

Instead of race it is sex in your example.

 

You haven't thought about this argument very much. Care to try again?

 

If your lame argument is "they could have just had a heterosexual marriage" then the same pathetic excuse goes for interracial marriage.

"They weren't denied the right because they could have just married someone of a different gender."
"They weren't denied the right because they could have just married someone of their race."

Same ****, different day.

 

You know that isn’t true

 

Asked and answered. If the marriage is not legally recognized it is a ceremony.

 

But same Sex marriages are actual marriages. And have exactly zero effect on opposite sex marriages.

 

Gay people were denied that right in numerous states. That’s literally what obergefell was about. A states ban on same sex marriage. The ruling OVERTURNED the bans that states had in place.

 

Real marriages are between one man and one woman.

Case closed with millennia of history locking the door.

 

Don't you think that God's design is too strong to be diminished?