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.
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.
That is not discrimination based on sex. Geeze, if I said, only men can sit at the lunch counter THAT discriminates based on sex. If I say all men, regardless of their sexual attraction can marry a woman, and all women regardless of their sexual attraction can marry a man, there is no discrimination based on sex.
Americans did not define marriage, they just didn't redefine it after it had existed within civilization before anyone on your list.
You still dont understand a few things. One of which is why self incrimination has to do with spousal testifying and the fact that that has nothing to do with the absurd notion that marriage is a right. Keep posting it's funny.
YOU brought it up, put or SHUT UP time.
Is spousal privilege a right enjoyed only by married couples? That's a yes or no question, btw.
Or you can outlay your self-incrimination argument? I'd actually be interested in hearing it.
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.
I'm not the only exception to the rule.
You were the one saying that NO CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS. Well, you're wrong. And you'll be more wrong as time goes on.
Quote:
61% of Republican leaning voters aged 18–29 support allowing same-sex couples to marry, while only 27% of Republican leaning voters over 50 years of age are supportive. 52% of Republican voters aged 18–50 support same-sex marriage.
A Gallup poll conducted in May 2014 found that 55% of Americans support allowing marriage for same-sex couples, 42% opposed, and 4% had no opinion on the issue. This was the largest percentage ever measured by the organization.
A Washington Post/ABC News poll from February–March 2014 found a record high of 59% of Americans approve of same-sex marriage, with only 34% opposed and 7% with no opinion.
Since 40 percent of Americans classify themselves as conservatives, it's pretty plain to see that I'm not the only conservative who isn't opposed to gay marriage rights.
We finally agree. yea!!!!! (As long as you dont try to force that acceptance on others.)
I don't care if you or anyone else personally accepts my marriage. You can pretend I'm not married all day long. Go for it. It has no impact on my life in any way.
If other laws require you to treat homosexuals the same as everyone else then your problem is with those laws, and you can try to get those laws overturned.
No, if a man can marry a woman, but a woman can not that is discrimination based on the sex of the people getting married.
Not one marriage license asks for the sexual orientation of the people getting married.
That's right. Because there is no discrimination based on the sex/gender of the individuals who seek a marriage license. They just have to be a man and a woman. Straight or gay doesn't matter, just one man and one woman.
I think the whole problem here started when states began banning same-sex couples from accessing marriage law in contravention of the Constitutional right to equal protection under the laws.
Yes, spousal benefits are huge.
If I were a gay business man and wanted to stick out and succeed I'd be all for government getting out of the marriage business and then I'd go out of my way to make it known that my company grants same sex couples marital benefits. I'd be a huge success, fishing from a bigger pond. There has to be some stories of businesses that recognized that before it became/becomes law.
That is not discrimination based on sex. Geeze, if I said, only men can sit at the lunch counter THAT discriminates based on sex. If I say all men, regardless of their sexual attraction can marry a woman, and all women regardless of their sexual attraction can marry a man, there is no discrimination based on sex.
Americans did not define marriage, they just didn't redefine it after it had existed within civilization before anyone on your list.
You still haven't addressed why it's not discrimination by not allowing men to marry men. I do not see how it's any different than saying women cannot enter into the workplace because women are allowed to stay at home and men are are allowed to work, regardless of whether they want to or not.
Marriage in US law is contract law only. The government doesn't care what tradition is behind it, it is only a word to describe the most common contract of the land, deciding rights between spouses. Spouses being the person you choose to share those rights and privileges with, granted and protected by the government.
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.
Conservative from the word conserve, use less of.
Exactly right.
The less government intrusion into homes and into bedrooms, the better. I don't want or need the government to define which consenting adults can have sex together. I can figure out my own moral standard without the government's help and I'm all for allowing others to do the same.
That's right. Because there is no discrimination based on the sex/gender of the individuals who seek a marriage license. They just have to be a man and a woman. Straight or gay doesn't matter, just one man and one woman.
Just like there was no discrimination or unequal treatment under interracial marriage bans. Everybody - and every race - was treated equally. It just had to be two members of the same race - just like it has to be two members of the opposite sex. Nobody could marry anybody of another race - just like nobody can marry anybody of the same sex.
Yeah, the courts laughed that argument out of court in the 1960s, and they're still laughing it out of court in the 2010s.
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.
