Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

Any denial of a right requires a legitimate state interest be served by said denial. No such interest existed for bans on same sex marriage, which is why they were ruled unconstitutional.

 

Yes, of course. Marxists are mostly just people that hate others. If the marxists wanted to get together and practice their communism amongst themselves, the rest of the world would sit back and watch the festivities and laugh. But they don't see it like that. They can't just go off and do what they want. The very idea of marxism involves a revolution.

Case in point: They are often told to go make their own means of production so that the workers can share in the profits of their cooperative business venture. They don't because it's not about the workers getting together, but rather stealing the property of others.

Literally, you can dare a marxist to get their precious workers together and produce their own means of production on their own until the cows come home, but that marxist is intellectually incapable of figuring out where you are coming from. They are too stupid to realize that they can do this on their own. The only thing they know is hatred of people who own the means of production.

And this hatred manifests itself in bizarre ways, such as a hatred of marriage. It has absolutely nothing to do with economics, and everything to do with hatred of conservative principles.

 

LOL! There's no rights being discussed here. As the Homo-Cult was never precluded from Marriage. They were only held to the exact same standards as EVERYONE ELSE... which if you're keeping score, is what "EQUAL" means.

Now, homosexuality is NOT a a function of genetics... as is RACE.

Hysterical... given that the same people who demanded extra-special rights... over those of everyone else, are the same one demanding to import hundreds of thousands of Muslim Theocrats to the US... LOL! Yet... there YOU are projecting YOUR traits, onto your opposition.

Which would be YOU, advancing deceit, as a fraudulent means to influence... the ignorant; which is to say the Moderate, Centrist, Independent Progressive Liberals.

ROFL! That is SO weird... .

 

Any assertion of a Right, requires sound reasoning to demonstrate such a right exists.

Thus far, there is no right to normalize mental disorder, presenting through perverse reasoning.

 

My three year old granddaughter sometimes goes all drama queen to get something she wants. Then when, or IF, she gets its decides she doesn't want it after all.

 

Nope. Not in the US anyway. Everything is a right unless the state can demonstrate a compelling reason it shouldn't be.

Which nobody is talking about. The topic is homosexuality.

 

To me members of the far-left basically have "emo kid" or hipster syndrome, except they didn't grow out of it passed high school. I think the mentality doesn't go much further than this:

"I hate everything which is "normal" just because it's "normal"!"

 

Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder. There is no potential for a right to normalize the perverse reasoning common to mental disorder.

Which is a presentation of mental disorder. Thus by your own assertion, we're discussing that for which there is no potential for a right; yet there you are asserting that there is a right to normalize the perverse reasoning common to a diseased mind.

LOL!

 

Convoluted...at best.

 

Except it's not a mental disorder.

Demonstrably false.

Nope

 

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

Go for it sweat cheeks. Go tell dating Christian heterosexuals they can no longer get married in the eyes of the US as their parents did.

 

No? Then how do ya explain the desire to pursue sexual gratification from people of the same gender?

A 180 degree deviation from Human Physiological Normality. to believe that such is 'normal human mentality'; thus NOT a function of a disordered mentality... is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder; OKA: Delusion.

Huh... I see the assertion that falsity is demonstrable... but no demonstration.

Which means that such is not demonstrable... thus is a demonstration that YOU LIED to the readers of this august board.

Now... pray tell. Why would you intentionally seek to deceive see to the Readers of this board, through such a fraudulence?? Why purpose would that serve?

(Besides the means to influence the ignorant... of course.)

 

Let them get married in a church, if they want the state to recognize it they have to have a child - I'd be fine with that.

 

You're probably right. I usually end up trying to read too much into things, and this might well be another example of that. We're not talking about democrats that have read rules for radicals, or Marx's literature.

It might well be a simple matter of hatred for normalcy.

I know that there is a hatred. I just can't figure out the underlying reasons for the hatred. Perhaps you are right, and there is no underlying rationale for their hatred. It's just hatred for everything, and the most obvious target for their hatred is the closest target.

 

Jealousy or resentment probably - basically just like the Grinch in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". If he can't enjoy Christmas then he just wants to prevent every else from enjoying it.

It's not about helping the disadvantaged, it's just about making the majority "more miserable" so that they don't feel as bad about themselves in comparison. This is why you hear about things such as the abolition of "honor roles" in public schools - instead of helping struggling students improve, let's just "take away" the reward.

 

Why should it benefit the state in some way? What do you mean by that?

 

They didn't need to make any claims. No one ever asked a straight couple to defend its right to marry, because it was always so self evident. In a world where post-menopausal couples and infertile people can just ask for a license because they were in love, and have it handed over, it never occurred straights to ponder such an irrelevant question. That's the real point, you know. Society made the reasons to marry, virtually undebatable UNTIL gays gave them a reason to create a debate. That tells how important the question really is outside of its usefulness to discriminate.

As for all the rest, who cares whether 55% or 5% of gays seek marriage in their current relationship or any relationship. Folks demand the right to worship, even if they don't attend a church. Folks insist on a right to an attorney even if they do not intend to break any laws. folks want a right to protest, even if they can't think of a cause they want to protest right now and they want to be able to vote, even if they never have before, and can't see any candidates they want to vote for next year.

 

I'm pretty sure "right to marry" in the cultural sense means a right to enter a relationship, or for a church or community to bless a relationship w/o the state forbidding them.

Versus a specific state benefit for doing so.

Even if the state disappeared people would still culturally marry. Just like Mormon polygamists still marry multiple women despite the state not recognizing the additional spouses.

 

So go tell em'.

 

What are you talking about? There is no reason for the government to not recognize gay partnerships. It should have been legal by default. Our system is supposed to be that you are free to do something until it is proven to necessitate a law.

 

State officials are the ones handing out the licenses. Churches are free do wed whoever they want.

 

Fully agree, at no time should a church be forced to marry anyone. I believe freedom of religion works both ways.

Edit: not just marry, but a church should not be forced by government to perform any religious ceremony.

 

Which doesn't invalidate my point. At all. Or do you think there was no civilization before we came along?