Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could you explain how, to discriminate against a mans option to marry a man, it is not discrimination on the basis of sex?
It is not discrimination on the basis of his sex. He is equally free to marry the same gender as a straight man. Thus, it is not about his gender, it is about his sexual attraction.
Gay people are seeking a special privilege to redefine marriage to mean the uniting of one person with the object of their sexual attraction, regardless of gender/sex.
That is the WORST analogy EVER! Marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman since the dawn of time. Even the constitution does not define a "voter."
Why is it so hard for proponents of gay marriage to just admit they want to redefine a core tradition of western society instead of using buzz words like "equality" when they are not arguing for polygamy or any other forms of marriage?
It's not a child...it's a choice....
It's not a fundamental change to the core structure of the family...it's equality....
George Orwell must be so proud!
Nope. marriage has been many women and one man, many men and one woman, same sex couples, old man and female child, man an prisoners of war, etc.
So you are the exception to the rule. Big deal! The polls show that most conservatives oppose gay marriage. Want me to post one? Gays can get all the legal protection they want with a civil union. Gay marriage feels to me like we are going the way of the Romans long ago where anything goes.
A conservative believes in less government intervention especially at the federal level and they believe in states rights. A conservative believes government should not define who can or cannot marry as its not the role of government.
That is the WORST analogy EVER! Marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman since the dawn of time. Even the constitution does not define a "voter."
Why is it so hard for proponents of gay marriage to just admit they want to redefine a core tradition of western society instead of using buzz words like "equality" when they are not arguing for polygamy or any other forms of marriage?
It's not a child...it's a choice....
It's not a fundamental change to the core structure of the family...it's equality....
How's this for rationale? It would be discriminating as a hetrosexual couple to be opposed to their hetrosexual neighbors wanting to marry. Why are you so adamant about a "traditional" marriage opposed to a civil union?
This isn't about "traditional" or religious marriage. This debate is about civil marriage. And what we're adamant about is equal treatment under the laws.
If there's a law called driving, then I want gay driving. If there's a law called marriage, then I want gay marriage. It's just that simple.
YES THEY ARE. Are you so uninformed that you haven't heard the marriage cake making debacle? answer- Yes you are. Yet again.
I'll take YOUR word for it on the finger part but I never said gays are evil. That's your sick twisted agenda because you are unable to seek the truth so you falsely testify about others beliefs. Pathetic but not surprising.
If you CHOOSE to open a business you agree to follow the laws of the state. No one FORCED you to open a business. So again, no one is FORCED to accept anything. If you do not like the laws of your state on operating a business then work to change them.
So you are the exception to the rule. Big deal! The polls show that most conservatives oppose gay marriage. Want me to post one? Gays can get all the legal protection they want with a civil union. Gay marriage feels to me like we are going the way of the Romans long ago where anything goes.
Most states banning gay marriage don't have civil unions, and several states banned gay people from those as well. Try again with a better argument.
It is not discrimination on the basis of his sex. He is equally free to marry the same gender as a straight man. Thus, it is not about his gender, it is about his sexual attraction.
Gay people are seeking a special privilege to redefine marriage to mean the uniting of one person with the object of their sexual attraction, regardless of gender/sex.
He's not as equally allowed to marry a male as a female is allowed to. So yes, it is discrimination on the basis of sex. It is saying "Only women can marry men".
I have to ask, who gets the ultimate decision to define marriage? Christians? Romans? Pagans? Americans?
I'm gonna go with Americans, since it's our country and we are by law not a religious country.
Neither do people who get married in their 50ss either . That argument has been brought up and shot down time and time again.
"Shooting down an argument" while ignoring the law is not refutation.
The primary legal effect of a marriage is to endow progeny with JOINED PROPERTY.
If there are no progeny, the joining is impaired, as is shown in this definition:
CURTESY - The estate to which by common law a man is entitled, on the death of his wife, in the lands or tenements of which she was seised in possession in fee-simple or in tail during her coverture, provided they have had lawful issue born alive which might have been capable of inheriting the estate.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 383
{Translation: The surviving spouse keeps the property if there are children born of the marriage. If no children, the blood kin of the deceased spouse has a superior claim to the property. The JOINING abrogated. He keeps his property, but her property goes back to her family.}
Of course, this is with respect to COMMON LAW, which licensed marriages do not comply with.
Remember, those who lack LEGAL STANDING to contract under the common law, need permission (license).
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE - One not solemnized in the ordinary way (i.e. ceremonial) but created by an agreement to marry, followed by cohabitation. A consummated agreement to marry between persons legally capable of making marriage contract, per verba de praesenti, followed by cohabitation...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.277
If you're wondering what changed people's status so they need permission to wed, I leave that as an exercise for the student.
SO, if two or more partners wish to endow the survivors with their property, a MARRIAGE CONTRACT is the last thing they should contract. A civil union or last will is more likely to achieve the goal of property transfer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
