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.
You still failed to answer a simple question, how does it redefine yours or any straight marriage and in what way? You also fail to recognize that #1, straight marriage has not always been the only form of marriage. #2 those 1049 federal rights that go with a marriage license are not contingent on reproduction, nor are they about the children of which gay couples also have, but that those rights are paid for by tax dollars from all US citizens, not just straight ones and thus as long as straight people enjoy those rights and protections and gays do not, then those rights and protections are indeed special, special rights for straight people, not your interpretation that we want special rights, when all we want is the same exact rights we pay for already and do not receive. Forget your reasoning that we have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex when that is not our love interest and is the same arguement used to deny interracial marriage. YOU FAIL AGAIN Dude. So, how in reality does a same sex marriage redefine a straight marriage?
You are moving the goalposts and introducing irrelevancies.
[quote=TheDragonslayer;32711928]You still failed to answer a simple question, how does it redefine yours or any straight marriage and in what way?
[snip]
Before ssm, if someone was 'married,' it was by definition, to someone of the other gender. SSM is a redefinition of the word as used in this country.
The same can be done now to make gay marriage legal in every state.
Why isn't this occurring?
It is occurring.
Quote:
How come it is being done piecemeal, using unelected judges as instruments, rather than by the will of the people,
How come of the 41 state interracial marriage bans, 0 of them were overturned by a vote of the people?
And gay marriage in most of the states where it's legal: Illinois, Hawaii, Minnesota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland, Maine, Washington, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont (as well as in Washington DC and within the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Colville, Coquille, Odawa, Pokagon, Santa Ysabel, Ojibwe, and Suquamish tribes) unelected judges had nothing to do with it. (also, in NM their judges are elected, and in NJ it easily passed the legislature to be vetoed by King Christie).
How come of the 41 state interracial marriage bans, 0 of them were overturned by a vote of the people?
And gay marriage in most of the states where it's legal: Illinois, Hawaii, Minnesota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland, Maine, Washington, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont (as well as in Washington DC and within the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Colville, Coquille, Odawa, Pokagon, Santa Ysabel, Ojibwe, and Suquamish tribes) unelected judges had nothing to do with it. (also, in NM their judges are elected, and in NJ it easily passed the legislature to be vetoed by King Christie).
Stillwater was talking about a constitutional amendment. This is not occurring.
If states are allowing gay marriage on their own, then let that happen. No need to get the judiciary involved.
The same can be done now to make gay marriage legal in every state.
Why isn't this occurring?
How come it is being done piecemeal, using unelected judges as instruments, rather than by the will of the people, which such an amendment would require?
Are you afraid that popular support for gay marriage is lacking?
Are you so uneducated that you do not know that interracial marriage bans were also dismantled state by state till the federal government stepped in in 1967? The will of the people means squat when it comes to voting on their rights. Do you also know that in the early 1960's many states were against interracial marriage and polls showed that more than 70% of the population was against interracial marriage. Bans against same sex marriage are unconstitutional and discriminatory in that they only exclude homosexuals from marrying each other, but do not exclude any other group of people for any other category, such as lack of fertility or too old to breed. You are too young to remember the 60's or anything earlier than that.
You are moving the goalposts and introducing irrelevancies.
Harrier answered your question.
Answer his.
You never answered my question at all. You failed to even approach it. Too afraid to admit that your reasons are based in biases against gay people? How will straight marriage be redefined? Six simple words in that question, can you answer it? And why exclude homosexuals from marriage? Marriage is not about children, never was legally. Marriage is not biblical either when it comes to legality.
You still failed to answer a simple question, how does it redefine yours or any straight marriage and in what way?
[snip]
Before ssm, if someone was 'married,' it was by definition, to someone of the other gender. SSM is a redefinition of the word as used in this country.
BALONEY, you are still married to your wife if you are a man, no change at all. Why do you need it to say husband and wife on the form, do you not know the sex of your mates without a piece of paper stating it? Just another word play to avoid answering the question. How will your marriage be redefined? Really quite simple and any kindergartener could answer it.
Are you so uneducated that you do not know that interracial marriage bans were also dismantled state by state till the federal government stepped in in 1967? The will of the people means squat when it comes to voting on their rights. Do you also know that in the early 1960's many states were against interracial marriage and polls showed that more than 70% of the population was against interracial marriage. Bans against same sex marriage are unconstitutional and discriminatory in that they only exclude homosexuals from marrying each other, but do not exclude any other group of people for any other category, such as lack of fertility or too old to breed. You are too young to remember the 60's or anything earlier than that.
Interracial marriage is irrelevant to this discussion.
Stillwater was talking about a constitutional amendment. This is not occurring.
If states are allowing gay marriage on their own, then let that happen. No need to get the judiciary involved.
Interracial marriage has nothing to do with this.
Stay on topic.
Interracial marriage has everything to do with this. Races were banned from marrying using many of the same excuses to ban same sex marriage, that it would lead to beastiality, to cousin marriage, that god did not intend the races to mix, that it was bad for the children, that they already had marriage equality to marry the one of their own race. Their fight for marriage equality sets a precedent for the continuing fight for same sex marriage. Both same sex marriage and interracial marriage bans are and were based on fear and ignorance and in both cases the government has had to step in and force the changes. The majority has no right to rule over and force laws on the minority.
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.
