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.
Wrong. Laws relating to marriage do not relate to the definition of marriage, they relate to the qualifications to get married. The qualifications do not change the basic elements, i.e., one man, one woman...just the age of the elements and perhaps citizenship of the basic elements. But the definition of marriage has always remained (whether religiously or civilly) throughout generations as one man and one woman (regardless of their sexual attraction).
Discrimination on the basis of sex, which is in clear violation of the 14th amendment and supported by The Civil Rights Act. Whether the tradition has been different doesn't mean a thing when the constitution is involved, because the constitution is the law of the land.
The USA changes law all of the time. Just because it's tradition going back thousands of years doesn't have any bearing on the constitutional status of it.
We don't care if you accept it or not. You can hate gay people for all I care. Your acceptance isn't needed for it to be legal.
Since when does opposing SSM equate to hating gays? I oppose it and have a few gay acquaintences that I really like as people. They are well aware that I oppose "traditional" marriage for gays but don't oppose a civil union. They don't hold it against me. They know I don't hate them (because I don't).
Rational people KNOW that marriage can NEVER be redefined as anything but a man and a woman. This is only the beginning of what's to come when God has been rejected by a large percentage of the population -- or "god" means WHATEVER you want it to mean.
Don't worry, your way of life will be REPLACED by the Muslims you defend. THEN they will tell you what "marriage" means for your 9 year old daughter.
No. It would be discriminating for a heterosexual couple to deny marriage for homosexual couples.
I am adamant because the same laws that denied me marriage also denied me civil unions, domestic partnerships, and any other legal contract approximating marriage. Now that the laws are changing there are calls to accept civil unions when they were NEVER OFFERED.
That is a very good point. Over the past several years when the push came for legalizing same sex marriage the more conservative politicians at both the federal and state level could of proposed civil unions. It would of been as simple as taking every law or tax code that mentions the word "spouse" to read "spouse or civil partner". There were some calls at the state level for this but nothing at the federal level.
Rational people KNOW that marriage can NEVER be redefined as anything but a man and a woman. This is only the beginning of what's to come when God has been rejected by a large percentage of the population -- or "god" means WHATEVER you want it to mean.
Don't worry, your way of life will be REPLACED by the Muslims you defend. THEN they will tell you what "marriage" means for your 9 year old daughter.
Freedom will die where Christianity has died.
Right. Freedom will die when you aren't forced to be a Christian. That makes a lot of sense.
That is a very good point. Over the past several years when the push came for legalizing same sex marriage the more conservative politicians at both the federal and state level could of proposed civil unions. It would of been as simple as taking every law or tax code that mentions the word "spouse" to read "spouse or civil partner". There were some calls at the state level for this but nothing at the federal level.
Well over a dozen states in fact went in the opposite direction and very carefully banned same-sex civil unions as well. It was never about the word "marriage".
Discrimination on the basis of sex, which is in clear violation of the 14th amendment and supported by The Civil Rights Act. Whether the tradition has been different doesn't mean a thing when the constitution is involved, because the constitution is the law of the land.
The USA changes law all of the time. Just because it's tradition going back thousands of years doesn't have any bearing on the constitutional status of it.
How is it discrimination based on sex when there are both gay men and women? If this tradition is supposedly unconstitutional then let the chips fall where they lay. Let's let the SC decide what is a violation of rights vs just made up nonsense. It was never intended by the writers of the 14th to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens either but yet they supposedly are. I'd like the SC to re-visit that one also. All you constitutional scholars in here must agree with me otherwise it would be hypocritical to claim that the Constitution says one thing about one issue yet the clear writing of birthright citizenship is in direct conflict of how that is being interpreted/assumed. How about we seek change to that "tradition" since gays think the tradition of marriage is wrong based on the Constitution. Well birthright citizenship for children of illegals is also in direct conflict with the Constitution.
How is it discrimination based on sex when there are both gay men and women? If this tradition is supposedly unconstitutional then let the chips fall where they lay. Let's let the SC decide what is a violation of rights vs just made up nonsense. It was never intended by the writers of the 14th to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens either but yet they supposedly are. I'd like the SC to re-visit that one also. All you constitutional scholars in here must agree with me otherwise it would be hypocritical to claim that the Constitution says one thing about one issue yet the clear writing of birthright citizenship is in direct conflict of how that is being interpreted/assumed.
A man (sex) can marry a woman (sex) but a woman can not marry a woman. It doesn't matter if the women are gay, straight, bi, or asexual they can not get married because they are the same sex. That is discrimination based on the SEX of the people getting married.
A gay man can marry a woman, but not a man. A straight man can marry a woman but not a man. The sexual orientation does not even come into play, but the sex of the two people getting married does.
A lesbian can marry a man but not a woman. A straight woman can marry a man, but not a woman. The sexual orientation does not come into play, but the sex of the two people getting married does.
Not one marriage license even asks for the sexual orientation of any couple getting married, but it does ask for the sex of the people getting married.
How is it discrimination based on sex when there are both gay men and women? If this tradition is supposedly unconstitutional then let the chips fall where they lay. Let's let the SC decide what is a violation of rights vs just made up nonsense. It was never intended by the writers of the 14th to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens either but yet they supposedly are. I'd like the SC to re-visit that one also. All you constitutional scholars in here must agree with me otherwise it would be hypocritical to claim that the Constitution says one thing about one issue yet the clear writing of birthright citizenship is in direct conflict of how that is being interpreted/assumed. How about we seek change to that "tradition"?
I've explained this. It's discrimination because you are expecting men to marry women only. You aren't allowing men to marry men. Sexuality isn't an issue in marriage as far as contract law. The government doesn't care if married couples have sex.
I'll be glad to let the chips fall where they may, I'm just explaining to everybody why I expect them to rule a certain way.
Laws in the USA have all sorts of consequences. That's what we get for not properly writing them. In fact, there's a judge in Oregon that ruled it's okay for a man to stick a camera up a 13 year old girls skirt and take a picture because there was not statutory grounds to convict him. If you don't like it, you have to fix it ... otherwise we are not a nation of laws, we are just deciding things arbitrarily on the go.
Since when does opposing SSM equate to hating gays? I oppose it and have a few gay acquaintences that I really like as people. They are well aware that I oppose "traditional" marriage for gays but don't oppose a civil union. They don't hold it against me. They know I don't hate them (because I don't).
I never said you did :-P. I said that you could for all I cared. Your opinion on the subject doesn't mean anything since at the end of the day your approval isn't needed for same sex marriage to happen.
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.
