Gay Marriage

[SparrowHawk]

Define Creator.

That's for you to decide. If you had more than 3 brain cells firing at the same time you'd know the original wording of the Declaration Of Independence used the word Sacred instead of inalienable.

It was changed as was God to Creator to avoid even an inkling of a state sponsored religion. The "Creator" could be the Big Bang Theory Or Jesus or anyone else YOU chose. The point is that you have a right to live your life as you choose.

Rights do NOT come from Governments. We have them at birth provided to us by our higher power.

 

[Dog Wonder]

I honestly did not know who Reverend Phelps was.

Of course you didn't. And you still don't, if you can't see yourself in him.

 

[Ms Tree]

So you are against the concept of law?

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Ms Tree]

Homosexual marriage is an agenda. Its long term goal is to normalize homosexual relationships in the public eye. Getting the government to legitimize it is just the first step.
 
You are right. Some people just don't get it. Like you; for instance. You are so damn dumb you can't even see five feet in front of your little libtard, brainwashed head.

 
 
Still tossing out insults and unable to substantiate your position.  How do you support your position legally?  I read the 14th and it seems pretty clear that the laws banning marriage equality is a violation of the COTUS.  Seems the courts agree.  What is your legal position?  'I don't agree/like it' is not typically a legal argument.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Furthermore ask yourself WHY is the government involved in your personal decisions as to who to spend your life with.

Would you react negatively if a Government Agency came in and took your kids because you weren't a Southern Baptist?

All these fascist Neo-cons spouting "Freedom of Religion" make me puke. What they really mean is to force their religious beliefs onto another. Imagine if Hobby Lobby was owned by members of the Muslim faith. Would the Neo-Cons be for so called religious freedom then?

Christian Conservatives, Neo-Cons and Liberal are all alike. They're all for :Freedom" just so long as it's THEIR version of Freedom.

 

[Ms Tree]

Most folks have a very narrow self interest.  So long as it is good for them, that is all they are worried about. 
 
When the Nazi's were looking to march in Skokie IL the discussions were quite heated at the dinner table.  Mom and dad were obviously against the whole idea given their history.  I was the one arguing for the Nazis right to march.  Took a long time for me to explain to mom and dad why they had to have the right to march but they finally got it.  They did not like it, but they got it. 
 
Rights have to apply equally to everyone, even the people you disagree with.

 

[delldude]

Marriage equality would equate to one man and one woman in the interest of procreation.
 
Man/Man = unbalanced equation = no procreation
 
Woman/Woman = unbalanced equation = no procreation

 

[700UW]

Marriage equality would equate to one man and one woman in the interest of procreation.
 
Man/Man = unbalanced equation = no procreation
 
Woman/Woman = unbalanced equation = no procreation

So move to China where the government controls procreation.

 

[Ms Tree]

Not to mention that no where on my marriage licence does it say anything about a requirement to procreate.  I am not aware of any legal obligation on under any state law for married people to procreate.  Perhaps I am missing it and someone can point out an example.  
 
There are quite a few laws regarding marriage that speak to assets, benefits, POA, and a host of other issues but i have yet to find anything about procreation.
 
So far as I am aware people are fully capable of having kids out of wedlock.  Just look at Bristol Palin.  She was able to have a kid just fine with no husband.
 
I wonder how the human race was able to survive prior to the advent of marriage.  I guess that's where the "the world is only 6,000 years old" comes in handy.

 

[delldude]

So move to China where the government controls procreation.

 
I prefer the Islamic solution.
 
Besides, why move to China?  Barack is bringing it here.

 

[delldude]

Not to mention that no where on my marriage licence does it say anything about a requirement to procreate.  I am not aware of any legal obligation on under any state law for married people to procreate.  Perhaps I am missing it and someone can point out an example.  
 
There are quite a few laws regarding marriage that speak to assets, benefits, POA, and a host of other issues but i have yet to find anything about procreation.
 
So far as I am aware people are fully capable of having kids out of wedlock.  Just look at Bristol Palin.  She was able to have a kid just fine with no husband.
 
I wonder how the human race was able to survive prior to the advent of marriage.  I guess that's where the "the world is only 6,000 years old" comes in handy.

 
How would that have worked out if Bristol was doing another woman?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Ms Tree tell me why gays will not accept "civil unions' as a compromise and keep pushing for marriage?

 

[Ms Tree]

Because civil unions as written are not the same as marriage.  The rights granted to each function are not even remotely the same.  
 
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compared-to-civil-unions.html
 
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html
 
 

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protectionsare conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
 

 

[Ms Tree]

Here is a GAO report from 2004 referencing the 1,138 Federal rights that are associated with marriage.  Civil unions, being only recognaized by the state do not have any of those rights.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Marriage equality would equate to one man and one woman in the interest of procreation.
 
Man/Man = unbalanced equation = no procreation
 
Woman/Woman = unbalanced equation = no procreation

 
So, then, in the interest of saving marriage for procreation, you would deny a marriage license to a senior couple in love because the wife is beyond child-bearing age?
 
Or to a young couple, one of whom happens to be sterile due to disease (e.g. hysterectomy, testicular cancer, etc.)?
 
Yes, your argument is very compelling, because the human race is obviously headed towrd oblivion because people are unable to procreate without that marriage license.