Should government even be involved in marriage?

Oh yeah! The detachment from reality is complete with this one.
U.S. Supreme Court
SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
316 U.S. 535

SKINNER(*)
v.(*)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. WILLIAMSON, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma.(*)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535

U.S. Supreme Court
ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (197
434 U.S. 374
ZABLOCKI, MILWAUKEE COUNTY CLERK v. REDHAIL(*)
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF(*)
WISCONSIN(*)
No. 76-879.(*)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=434&invol=374

 

Neither was I. Tax breaks and governmental entitlements aren't natural rights.

 

the court didn't hear the case. those are not supreme court precedent any more than the prop 8 case is.

 

The courts both heard and rendered their decisions. Evidently not only is your detachment from reality is complete, but also your ideology wouldn't allow you to even click on the links to regain some small amount of reattachment to that reality.

 

they did no such thing. the let the lower courts rulings stand. not the same thing

 

You really don't have a clue. First because all court cases heard by the supreme court present the judges with the choice to 1. affirm or "let the lower court ruling stand", 2. Reverse the lower court ruling, or 3. Remand the case back to the lower court with instructions. And in all 3 instances they write their opinions, complete with written dissents from judges in the minority, and record those opinions. Just click on the links, you'll see. Don't fear the reality.

And you don't have a clue because in one of the decisions i linked to they REVERSED the lower court ruling and in the other they affirmed the decision by the lower court. In both cases they render a supreme court decision and write an opinion that becomes precedent.
Grasp a little reality if you can.

 

still not current supreme court precedent.

 

Marriage is a natural right while the privileges and immunities inferred by tax breaks and entitlements may be established by our legislatures.

 

Only StarShip Troopers should qualify for requiring a marriage license as a privilege and immunity due to their wellness of regulation, not the militia of the United States.

 

Both current and past supreme court decisions are precedent.

 

nope. the courts do not consider procreation to be a factor in who can marry.

 

You are a joke. First you claimed they weren't supreme court precedent, when that didn't work, you claimed they didnt actually render a decision, when that didn't work you claimed they weren't "current" supreme court precedent, and now that this didn't work you want us to believe they don't mean what they clearly state.

 

I'm a joke? I'm not the one pretending outdated or overturned cases are current precedent.

 

I think I should have named this thread "Should the Christian Right even be involved in Gay Marriage?"

 

None of the 3 decisions have been overturned.

 

All three

 

Considering that in the last 64 posts no one has as much as even mentioned Christianity except for you twice, maybe you should have because you sure seem to want to make the thread about the christian right.

 

Exactly, and the answer is no.

 

The reality is the fight against gay marriage is lead by the Christian right. There's no denying this. Oh, I know conservative Christians are trying their hardest to argue that religion is not what it's about. That it's about freedom (ironic and stupid really) and that traditional families produce better children. But the dishonesty is apparent. They're fighting gay marriage because they think it's a sin and it's icky. Plain and simple.

I'll wait while you try to prove me wrong.

 

I believe the right is being disingenuous when claiming only human sexuality in modern times is bad due to morals from the Iron Age, while giving the abomination of hypocrisy a free pass in these same modern times.

 

Of course it is. Now that they're losing big time, they have to do employ people like dixon to do their dirty work. Unfortunately for them, no one is that stupid.

 

Havent heard that one. Why dont you link to the post in this thread that uses this freedom argument.

Lets see your evidence that the claim that children raised by their married biological parents tend to do better than children who are not is dishonest. Since the dishonesty is so apparent.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you stupid enough to believe that I am paid by the Christian right?

 

Coming on pretty strong there for someone who seemingly spent a lot of time under a rock. How is it you haven't heard the Christian right fears of their freedoms if (when) gay marriage is legalized? They're afraid churches will be forced to perform gay ceremonies. Private catering and decoration business will be sued if they don't do business with homosexuals.

I didn't say such a study itself is dishonest (although it is a debatable study http://www.medicaldaily.com/article...hier-children-self-esteem-family-cohesion.htm). I'm saying it's dishonest for the socalled Christian Right to act like they're arguing from a nonBiblical and strictly scientific viewpoint. We all know that if Christians believed (or knew) that homosexuality was not a sin, this forum subsection would not exist. There would be no gay rights forum. There just wouldn't be a need for it. At all.

 

I said link to the post.

I said biological parents, not opposite sex parents.

Im an atheist. who are you even referring to. Would seem you just really dont want to address ANY of the arguments actually being made in your thread, so you make up others you are more willing to address. Typical

 

I'm curious as to when I claimed that such fears were expressed here at the forum. I can link to websites (ex.: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ould-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings.html). But I made no statement that the debate on freedoms used by Christians on this issue was somehow expressed here at the forums. It is however a widely used talking point that I'm simply shocked that anyone with any knowledge on the issue of gay marriage, hasn't heard it before.

Is that sufficient enough reason to argue against gay marriage? Or is the fact even if just one (and there are many more than one) example of children being raised in nontraditional families turn out okay, means that there are solutions other than governing how people should raise their family?

The claim itself may not be dishonest. The dishonesty comes when you take that and say, "well statistically married biological parents are better parents, and even though there are examples of nontraditional parents that are just as good and sometimes even better, I will use this claim as a 'zero tolerance' campaign against nontraditional parents."

Uh... you asked.

Your professed atheism is irrelevant. I made a comment in a thread in which I started, stating I should have just called it "should Christians even be involved in gay marriage?" Probably, as you pointed out, not in address to ANY of the arguments. You responded.

Actually I'm pretty certain your argument derailed the original post. The only thing I asked was should government even be involved in marriage? Asking about government being involved in something personal and intimate as relationships. The discussion seemed to be going pretty well. Until somebody said something about the need to prove sexual intercourse. Sir, how the hell does that address my original post?

In any case, the arguments seem all over the place, mostly because gay rights supporters here view you as opposition. They may be misunderstanding.

So let's start from the beginning.

Are you for or against gay marriage?

What does proof of intercourse have to do with validating marriage?