"BREAKING: Obama admin. may urge Sup Ct to recognize gay marriage nationwide"

It DIRECTLY refutes your claims of "equal legal rights" by demonstrating the inherent INEQUALITY of "gay marriage". Thats why you have nothing to say in response other than your baseless denials void of even a shred of substance.

 

Hello!? McFly!? If you just have a baby but don't raise, whether by humans, wolves, or primates, IT WILL DIE!

I can't believe I actually had to type out this response!

 

Yes but you're missing the point.

There is only ONE group that can create human children in and of themselves. That is a human male and a female. Period. As you acknowledged ANYBODY can raise them. A single mom, single dad, a cousin, other kids, grandparents, even monkey's and wolves..... So we have a unique group whose behavior we are attempting to manipulate in those who can procreate. That makes their behavior more valuable.

Think of it this way. If you're a business owner and you are deciding what to pay your employees. You are going to pay more to the employee who has a unique skill and is more difficult to replace than you will pay the employee who has a generalized skill that anybody even monkey's and wolves can do.

Furthermore, if that employee's unique skill is the driving force behind your business and without it your business would cease to exist... you're going to want to pay them even more for that behavior.

That's what's going on here.

 

And if the mother who gave birth or the man who caused her to do so, presumed to be the husband if she is married, don't provide and care for that child, the child has only the hope that someone else voluntarily assumes those obligations. That's why men and women have been required, or encouraged to marry since the dawn of civilization.

 

That wasn't a Supreme Court justice. But over 20 federal courts have said so. Only 2 have not.

Irrelevant.

.
Irrelevant. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.

Not a Supreme Court justice. And over 20 federal courts have said so. Only 2 have ruled otherwise and have no chance on appeal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/03/federal-judge-upholds-louisiana-gay-marriage-ban/

 

You still haven't coherently defined the "inequality" of SSM. Actually, I'm still waiting for you to coherently define anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. How you can draw that absurd conclusion is beyond belief.

 

Which words were too big for you to understand and I'll try to help you out.

 

And allowing same sex couples to marry makes marriage MORE equal, not less.

 

Here in the US, discrimination is judged by its relation to the governmental interest served, not by the numbers.

 

You've failed miserably in every attempt to redefine equality and inequality. My advice - give up.

- - - Updated - - -

Give it up, rahl. He has some bizarre notion of inequality that neither you nor I can seem to overcome.

 

And you need to come up with an interest served by denying same sex couples. You can't which is why you keep losing.

 

You are the one unable to even string together a few words to make your argument

- - - Updated - - -

You would need to actually formulate an argument to do so.

 

I have never been for calling it a marriage, but if some states do and some don't, that only makes a mess, especially if one moves. It should be uniform in all states.

 

I and the states have repeatedly. The wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce. The courts respond by telling the states thats not why they limit marriage to men and women and claim that is so limited to "disparage and injure" homosexuals and demand justification for an intent to disparage and injure homosexuals. To justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, when, as you pointed out, it is clearly on the basis of the "sex" of the parties to the couple.

 

No USSC ruling means SEVEN ....NEW states will allow same-sex marriage.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...supreme-court-refuses-to-rule-on-gay-marriage


How many is that now, dixon???

 

And as I and the courts keep pointing out, that isn't an interest served by EXCLUDING a same sex couples as is required by the constitution.

It's why you keep losing.

 

The well being of children made by Heterosexuals does not automatically mean that those Heterosexual couples who made the child will go on to always love and care for the child the way those who do not produce children that way can. That is why many statistics continue to show that Homosexual couples are more than capable of giving love and full support to their adopted children. Gay couples especially know what it is to love a child because many times they themselves were not loved by their Heterosexual parents and were ousted, ostracized, and thrown out of their own homes for being Gay or Lesbian. They cannot stand seeing children in orphanages being done the same way for whatever reason. That's another very good reason they make excellent parents and should continue to be given the chance to take in the children left at orphanages by those Heterosexual parents who didn't give a damn about them so they can come in to a loving home with parents that will respect them and love them, care for them and raise them the way they should be by those with a loving heart.

 

I suppose closed-minded Conservatives can find any restriction to actual freedom and liberty in the Constitution they want. If not for push-back by human beings who happen to be "liberal"... Conservatives would probably impose whatever restrictions they wished.

Thank God that the world isn't exactly what some imagine it should be!!

 

No ne claimed otherwise, Ill wait here while you chase down that tangent

 

No they dont. It is because that interest IS served that they need to allege that marriages limitation isnt based upon sex and is instead based upon sexual orientation.

 

in the beginning I was for civil unions as well until cases of them not being allowed to see their partner on a death bed, or having to pay taxes on the stuff both of them owned when their partner died... if civil unions were not equal... then marriage was the only way to get equality, thus now I support same gender marriage

 

For any two consenting adults who desire "same gender marriage" or just the gays, like all these courts are ruling?

 

the rules should be just like with opposite sex couples, equal rights....

 

Actually, the rights are UNequal by design. While unrelated couples are free to marry, closely related couples are excluded. Obvious your concern is only for gays and it is at the expense of equality. Pretty hypocritical to claim its equal rights.