Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

What are you referring to? What is this framework? Christianity?

What besides your ideology tells us that a homosexual household is an 'environment of confusion?'

 

Marriage.

It's just common sense. Before they can verbalize it, children know that men can't be mothers and women can't be fathers; and the instant they see kids with moms and dads they begin to understand that they've been shortchanged.

 

Ah. The framework provided in marriage is marriage, and homosexuals are refusing to avail themselves of it by pushing to get married. Makes total sense.

'It's just common sense' = 'it's just my opinion.'

 

They're doing no such thing, obviously. What they're pushing for is the mass brainwashing of society into the patently insane belief that two men or two women can be married.

What I said is exactly as much my opinion as my view that adults shouldn't copulate with prepubescent children; and clearly anyone who disagrees with either "opinion" is, to be maximally charitable, absolutely dead wrong.

 

Well you certainly sound convinced, but that has little power to convince me. Maybe you're awash in ideological kool-aid?

The above statement proves nothing, of course. Neither do your assertions.

But what actual evidence do you have that homosexual couples do not love each other like human couples generally do? Your emotional feelings about the matter don't count. Got anything else?

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. You can't 'borrow' rightness from the condemnation of pedophilia just by putting it and your anti-gay opinions in the same post.

 

i support an amendment allowing states to decide for themselvses if they will have SSM.

that way the world will see who are the humans and who are the cavemen.

 

No, you're projecting.

Seeing most sexual relationships are based on lies, that's the wrong question.

Neither do your self-serving mischaracterizations, except to lovers of lies.

They are both manifestations of insanity. You're welcome.

 

This little conversation is quite useless. You just go "It is, it is, IT IS! and skip all opportunities to examine your assumptions. While you're keen to pick out MY unsupported assertions, you've totally missed that they were made to mirror yours, in the hopes you'd see a little of what you are doing. But it's clear that isn't working, so I don't see a productive way forward with you at this time.

 

You are welcome to disengage whenever you like.

They're not assumptions, they're self-evident truths.

Actually I'm far less concerned with their lack of support than I am with the fact that they are preposterous.

Since you clearly labor under a false impression of what I'm doing, your sense of futility is understandable.

 

We have a republican form of Government for a reason, so that tyrants reaching a quorum have a harder time denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the minority.

 

No, marriage has been defined by bigoted Christians as a female and male couple.

I personally prefer the more general definition of marriage: Any intimate or close union.

From a government or legal standpoint it is the financial partnership established between individuals based upon an intimate and close union that establish a personal partnership. Our government is mandated with a responsibility to protect the Rights of Property in cases where a financial partnership is established and this relates to the personal partnership established by the "marriage" of individuals. Our government should not be defining "social" relationships but should be protecting our property rights related to financial partnerships.

 

So as far as you're concerned, most children are married to their parents. I've got that about right, haven't I?

 

How do modern Christians in modern times reconcile their subjective moral values, with Article 4, Section 2 as enumerated in our supreme law of the land?

 

From a legal perspective marriage is about the financial affairs of those involved in personal partnerships by contract where their financial income, assets, and liabilities are share. With this merger of income, assets, and liabilities also comes the understanding that the "payment of taxes" is a mutual responsibility of the personal financial partnership established by contract. This is why a same-sex couple is entitled to "spousal Social Security benefits" because the taxes paid by one provide benefits for the other and this is true regardless of who the other member of the personal financial partnership is.

A child cannot enter into a contract and therefore cannot be legally married to anyone based upon a mutual personal financial partnership. In the legal institution of marriage the children are treated as "property" if a dissolution occurs as they represent both an "asset" and a "liability" for the individuals involved in the legal personal financial partnership established by contract.

 

They don't nor do they reconcile their subjective moral values with Article IV Section 1 which states in part:

A marriage license is an official record issued by a State and must, under the US Constitution, be recognized as such by all other States.

 

most Americans support equal rights for all, republicans are fighting a losing battle on this one

 

Then obviously the marital rights of children are violated by contract law - which is, after all, no less fungible than the legal definition of marriage.

 

If a child is not "married" then how are their rights being violated?

The only time I'm aware of when a child's "marital rights" are potentially violated is when they have not reached the legal age of consent and based upon either the parents or a judge they become involved in a "legal marriage" contract. From my perspective such marriage should be subject to annulment up until the person is of legal age to enter into a contract and whoever authorized the "contract" should be held financially liable for the marriage until that age is reached.

 

By being denied the right to marry, obviously.

 

In a modern multi-cultural democracy people have to learn to mind their own business. Who someone marries or how someone handles her pregnancy is none of my business,none of your business, and none on the state's. The constitutional ammendment we need is: "corporations are not people, and money is not speech."

 

While we're at it, let's pass one that says day is night and up is down.

 

Ah, mockery. Can you offer any intelligent reason to think corporations are people, and must be accorded the RIGHT to buy all the speech their director's want?

Such as your's, perchance?

 

It's self-evidently true. What more reason does anyone need?

Aren't the directors people?

If I'm willing to sell mine that's between me and the corporation, obviously.

 

No, the legal fiction that corporations are people is, in reality, self-evidently false.

The directors are indeed people. A corporation is a scheme for organizing work involving shared property rights. Schemes are not people. Corporations, basically, are manifestations of the behavior of people.

And I note you don't deny that you are a shill, you answer obliquely. Interesting.

 

I'm sure it is, to people who see lies as truth.

To be sure...but neither is a corporation a scheme, obviously.

Neither have I seen you deny that you're a mental defective, but I don't suppose it would be quite cricket to draw any pertinent conclusions from that.